1. All parts of the instant lawsuit, excluding the minutes of the disciplinary action, shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 14, 2006, when the Plaintiff was in office as a teacher of a school B (hereinafter “B”), the Plaintiff was subject to two months of suspension from office by the Defendant.

B. On January 3, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s work performance rating was fabricated from 2004 to 2005 against the Defendant, and filed a civil petition against the Plaintiff to disclose the Plaintiff’s work performance rating during the said period, the Plaintiff’s written answer on May 2, 2006, and the minutes of the disciplinary action as of May 29, 2006.

C. On January 9, 2013, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a public notice of the performance rating table of teachers in 2004 and the performance rating table of teachers in 2005, using the same method as the attached list, and sent to the Plaintiff a reply that the minutes of the disciplinary action and the written answer of the disciplinary action are confidential on the grounds of Article 20 of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree and Article 18

(hereinafter “First Disposition”) d.

On January 17, 2013, the plaintiff filed an objection against the defendant as to the first disposition, and demanded again that the office of education duplicate the results of work performance ratings kept in the office of education, and suggest the grounds for non-disclosure of the copy of the written answer of the Disciplinary Committee.

Accordingly, on January 23, 2013, the Defendant made a copy of the original work performance rating from 2004 to 2005, and made it public on January 9, 2013. The Defendant respondeded to the purport that the grounds for non-disclosure of the copy of the written answer to the disciplinary minutes are Article 20 of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree and Article 18 of the Decree on the Disciplinary Action against Public Officials.

E. In addition, the Plaintiff continuously filed a civil petition with the same purport as the Defendant on January 25, 2013, February 1, 2013, February 201, 2013, February 2013, and March 13, 2013, etc., and the Defendant respondeded with the same content as above on March 22, 2013, etc.

F. On March 21, 2013, the Plaintiff again disclosed to the Defendant the performance rating table of teachers in 2004, and the school teacher’s performance rating table in 2005, and the Plaintiff intended to directly receive copies after having perused the recording tape of the disciplinary minutes as of May 29, 2006 at the site.