1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, are as follows: (a) adding “A Disciplinary Committee” (hereinafter “Disciplinary Committee”) to “General Disciplinary Committee on Public Educational Officials at the Office of Education of Incheon Metropolitan City” (hereinafter “General Disciplinary Committee”) following the 5th page 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) applying the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes of the court of first instance as the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes of this court; and (c) applying the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and accordingly, (d)

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The former Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 19560, Feb. 26, 2019; hereinafter “former Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials”).

Article 15 of the Plaintiff asserted that Article 15-2(1) of the Decree on Disciplinary Measures against Public Educational Officials was unconstitutional on November 19, 2019, but the said provision was newly established on February 26, 2019, which was subsequent to the instant disposition. Therefore, Article 15 of the former Decree on Disciplinary Measures against Public Educational Officials (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 19560, Feb. 26, 2019) stipulates that Article 15 of the former Decree on Disciplinary Measures against Public Educational Officials (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 19560, Feb. 26, 2019) is unconstitutional. In addition, Article 2 of the former Rules on Disciplinary Measures against Public Educational Officials (Amended by Ordinance No. 128, Mar. 24, 2017); Article 2(1) of the former Rules on Disciplinary Measures against Public Educational Officials (Amended by Ordinance No. 135, Jul. 26, 2017) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant provisions”).

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the provisions of attached Table 2(1) of the Regulations on Disciplinary Measures, etc. of Public Educational Officials are unconstitutional in the preparatory documents dated November 19, 2019. However, Article 2 of the former Rules on Disciplinary Measures, etc. of Public Educational Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education No. 128, Mar. 24, 2017) concerning disciplinary measures, etc. of public educational officials subject to the grounds for disciplinary action (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education, Mar. 24, 2017) are unconstitutional.