1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The grounds for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion are as follows: (a) the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3 to No. 4) is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, if the court excludes the part that is stated in this part as follows; and (b) thus, it shall be cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

Part 2 of the Second Instance 19 states " April 14, 2014" as " April 14, 2017." The third page 6 and seven parallels " September 19, 2019." as " September 19, 2018."

The term "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes" of the 11th through 13th shall be replaced by the attached Form of this Judgment in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A. Whether the grounds for the disciplinary action against the same teacher’s sexual harassment are acknowledged or not are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 6 to No. 8). Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. In a case where disciplinary action is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official as to whether he/she has abused or abused discretion, the disciplinary action is illegal only when the disciplinary action taken as the exercise of discretion is deemed to have been significantly lost in light of social norms and thus, the disciplinary action is unlawful.

In a specific case where the disciplinary action against a public official has considerably lost validity under social norms, the content and nature of the reason for the disciplinary action, the administrative purpose intended to achieve the disciplinary action, and the criteria for disciplinary action, etc. should be considered to be objectively unreasonable. Meanwhile, when the person having authority over disciplinary action has taken disciplinary action in accordance with the criteria for a disciplinary action determined in advance, the standard itself violates the principle of proportionality or rationality.