[1] Whether a decision of sexual harassment and a recommendation of corrective measures under the former Act on Prohibition of and Remedies for Gender Discrimination by the Gender Discrimination Improvement Committee constitutes an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation (affirmative)

[2] Whether the business relationship, which is the requirement for sexual harassment under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Prohibition of and Remedies for Gender Discrimination Act, is limited to specific business relationship to the extent that it may have a direct influence on the other party, such as disadvantage in employment (negative)

[3] The case holding that an act committed by the incumbent Do governor while holding an interview with the head of a women's occupational organization within the jurisdiction constitutes sexual harassment under the former Prohibition of and Remedy for Gender Discrimination Act by taking into account specific circumstances, such as the nature of the interview, relationship between the parties, time and place of the interview, the situation at the time of the interview, response of the other party,

[1] If the Gender Discrimination Improvement Committee unilaterally determines that his/her speech or behavior constitutes sexual harassment despite having made a decision different from that of the Committee on the Improvement of Gender Discrimination, it would be likely that his/her personal right guaranteed by the Constitution may be infringed directly. Thus, by the decision of the Committee on the Improvement of Gender Discrimination, it is reasonable to guarantee the right to a trial guaranteed by the fundamental rights of the people by providing the people whose personal right is directly infringed upon by the decision of the Committee on the Improvement of Gender Discrimination with an opportunity to file an administrative lawsuit against the Committee on the Improvement of Gender Discrimination, and at the same time, the recommendation of corrective measures by the Committee on the Improvement of Gender Discrimination against the head of a public institution or the employer under the former Act on the Prevention of and Remedies for Gender Discrimination (amended by Act No. 6915 of May 29, 2003) is a kind of administrative guidance which does not directly and legally change in the legal status of the person who caused sexual harassment. However, regardless of such form, the Act grants the legal obligation of the Committee on the Improvement of Gender Discrimination and the other party to take corrective Measures at the same time.

[2] The sexual harassment under the former Act on the Prohibition of and Remedies for Gender Discrimination (amended by Act No. 6915 of May 29, 2003) includes not only the scope of its application, but also the scope of its employment relationship. It does not limit the scope of its application to the employment relationship. The sexual harassment does not require any disadvantage in employment or aggravation of the employment environment due to sexual harassment, but also causes sexual humiliation or aversion. The meaning of "using its status" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the same Act should be deemed to include the abuse of its authority in addition to the legitimate use. Thus, it cannot be limited to the specific business relationship to the extent that it may have direct influence on the other party, such as the disadvantage in employment.

[3] The case holding that an act conducted by the current Do governor while holding an interview with the head of a women's occupational organization within the jurisdiction constitutes sexual harassment under the former Prohibition of and Remedy for Gender Discrimination Act (amended by Act No. 6915 of May 29, 2003) by taking into account specific circumstances, such as the nature of the interview, relationship between the parties, time and place of the interview, situation at the time of the interview, response of the other party, sexual motive or intent, etc.

[1] Articles 7, 28, 30, 31, and 33 of the former Act on Prohibition of and Remedies for Gender Discrimination (amended by Act No. 6915 of May 29, 2003), Articles 10 and 27 of the Constitution, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Act on Prohibition of and Remedies for Gender Discrimination / [3] Articles 2 subparagraph 2, 7, and 28 of the former Act on Prohibition of and Remedies for Gender Discrimination (amended by Act No. 6915 of May 29, 2003)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Park Young-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gender Discrimination Improvement Committee (Law Firm Self-help, Attorneys Lee Ha-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Intervenor (Law Firm New Law Office, Patent Office, Attorneys Choi Han-soo et al., Counsel for the intervenor-appellant)

April 22, 2004

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The primary purport of the claim is that the defendant's act on July 29, 2002 against the plaintiffs was decided by sexual harassment against the defendant's supplementary intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor"). 2. The plaintiff's decision that the plaintiff's action against the plaintiff on July 29, 2002 is revoked that the plaintiff's action against the defendant's supplementary intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor").

Preliminary purport of claim: The defendant's decision on October 21, 2002 that "All plaintiffs' objections are dismissed." is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff 1 is a person who has been employed as the Jeju Do Governor, and Plaintiff 1 is a public institution under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Gender Discrimination and Remedies Act, and the intervenor is a person who had been employed as the head of the Korea-U.S. Jeju City Branch Office since April 2001 while operating the beauty room in Jeju City.

B. On February 21, 2002, the intervenor filed an application for correction pursuant to the former Act on the Prohibition of and Remedy for Gender Discrimination (amended by Act No. 6915 of May 29, 2003; hereinafter referred to as "the Act on the Prohibition of Gender Discrimination") with the respondent, by asserting that "the intervenor visited the office of the Do Governor on January 25, 2002 at the request of a public official belonging to Jeju-do, who received the direction from the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1, during the interview with the plaintiff 1."

C. Accordingly, on July 29, 2002, the defendant decided on July 29, 2002 that the interview with the plaintiff 1 and the intervenor had a comprehensive business relationship with the head of a local government or the head of an occupational organization within the jurisdiction with the head of a local government, and the plaintiff 1 suffered losses from the intervenor's chest during the interview. This decision was made on August 27, 2002 by the defendant against the plaintiffs on the ground that the interview was sexual speech and behavior causing sexual humiliation or aversion under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the same Act, and that it was sexual speech and behavior causing sexual humiliation or aversion to cause a sense of aversion under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the same Act. 2. The plaintiff 1 made a decision on July 29, 200 that "the plaintiff 1 paid damages to the intervenor 10,000,000 won, and recommended the plaintiff 1 to establish measures to prevent recurrence from transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). The plaintiffs raised an objection on August 27, 20002.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Eul No. 1, 14, and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

For the following reasons, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disposition is unlawful, and thus, they sought the revocation of the instant adjudication in preliminary case only if the disposition is not recognized.

First, the meaning of "public official" in the provision on the prohibition of election campaign using his status as a public official under the Public Official Election and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act refers to a public official's election campaign in the course of performing his/her official duties or in favor of his/her duties and election campaign by taking advantage of his/her status as a public official, which may affect the electorate. However, the use of private relations or simply a public official's status shall not be deemed a case where he/she uses his/her status as a public official, and the relevance of duties under the Gender Discrimination Act shall also be interpreted to the same extent as above. Thus, the interview between the plaintiff 1 and the intervenor is a private person who is not the governor's status, and the interview between the plaintiff 1 and the intervenor was not conducted in relation to his/her duties, and it does not constitute "business affairs, employment relations, and other relations provided for in the Gender Discrimination Act."

Second, the plaintiff 1 delivered a mersh with the plaintiff 1 to the secretary room connected to the plaintiff's office at the time of the interview with the plaintiff 1, who was aground for the plaintiff 1's second time after the plaintiff 1 went to the plaintiff's second time after the plaintiff 1 had been sitting to the plaintiff's second time, "I am aground for the plaintiff's both shoulders of the plaintiff 1, and am aground for the plaintiff 1's second time after the interview." After the interview with the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1 went to the plaintiff's second time, "I am aground for the plaintiff 1's second time, I am aground for the plaintiff's second time, and he did not come to the plaintiff's second time's second time and did not come to the plaintiff's second time's second time, but did not come to the plaintiff's second time's sexual harassment and did not come to the plaintiff 1's second time's second time, and it was meaningful that the plaintiff 1's second time's second time's sexual harassment did not come to the plaintiff 1.

Third, the defendant did not serve a written request for correction submitted by the intervenor to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiff 1's statement was made on July 29, 2002 on the same day, and immediately announced the contents of the press resolution, and issued an opportunity to present opinions to the head of the agency to the head of the agency before making the recommendation for correction pursuant to Article 29 (1) of the Gender Discrimination Prevention Act, but did not follow the above procedure. The disposition of this case is unlawful in violation of the principle of equity and procedure by protecting only the interests of the plaintiffs 1, who were identified as a sexual harassment offender, and by protecting only the interests of both parties, without balancing the interests of the parties.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful as it does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to the administrative litigation, since the administrative guidance recommending the other party to voluntarily correct it, where the head of a public institution or user who has been recommended to take corrective measures fails to comply with it, any direct means of compelling the implementation thereof is not provided.

(b) Markets:

(1) Relevant statutes

Article 7 (3) of the Gender Discrimination Prohibition Act provides that "sexual harassment shall be deemed to be gender discrimination". Article 28 (1) of the same Act provides that "where there exist reasonable grounds to believe that it falls under gender discrimination as a result of an investigation conducted under Article 22, the defendant shall determine that it is gender discrimination, and shall recommend the head of the public institution or the employer concerned to take measures necessary for correction." Article 7 (2) of the same Act provides the grounds for the defendant's decision of sexual harassment and the recommendation of corrective measures." Paragraph (1) of the same Article provides that "The corrective measures under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be as follows:

(2) The administrative disposition of the instant decision

Personal rights are recognized as derived from human dignity and value, which is the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution, and their contents are passive rights that are derived from human dignity and value, and the general public shall have the right not to infringe on social reputation and value, and the State shall actively bear the duty to guarantee the social reputation and value to the general public. If, as in this case, even though the defendant made a decision different from the defendant on whether a person who was designated as a sexual harassment constitutes sexual harassment, if the defendant unilaterally makes a decision that his speech and behavior constitutes sexual harassment, then his personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution may be directly infringed upon by such decision. In this sense, the defendant's decision of this case, which decided as a sexual harassment committed by the plaintiff 1, is likely to cause a direct infringement on the plaintiff 1's personal rights, and thus, constitutes administrative disposition.

In addition, Article 27(1) of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have the right to a trial in c. by providing that "the right to a trial shall be held in c. by all citizens," and declares the right to a trial as a fundamental right, and the contents of the right to a trial include the right to a lawsuit in the case of infringement of the people's rights by public authority. However, it is reasonable to guarantee the right to a trial guaranteed as such by the above fundamental right by providing the citizens whose personal rights are directly infringed due to the defendant's decision of sexual harassment with

However, Article 30 of the Act on the Prohibition of Gender Discrimination only stipulates that the other party to the notification of the defendant's sexual harassment shall be the applicant and the head of the relevant public institution or the employer. However, considering that the party whose personal right is directly infringed upon by the defendant's sexual harassment decision is a person who has been designated as a sexual harassment offender, it is reasonable to interpret it to the purport that it will substitute the notification with the notification to the head of the relevant public institution or the employer. From this point of view, the current Article 30 (1) of the Act on the Prohibition of Gender Discrimination stipulates that the other party to the decision

(3) The administrative disposition of the instant recommendation for corrective measures

The defendant's recommendation for corrective measures against the head of a public agency or the employer can be shown as a kind of administrative guidance that does not directly cause any legal change in the legal status of the other party (Article 28 (1) of the Gender Discrimination Act). However, notwithstanding such form, the Gender Discrimination Act grants the legal obligation to implement the recommendation to the defendant unless the head of the public agency or the user explains special reasons to the defendant (Article 31 (1) of the same Act). Thus, the defendant's recommendation for corrective measures is an administrative disposition that imposes legal obligation on the other party in substance.

However, if the head of the public agency or the user of the public agency did not implement the defendant's recommendation of corrective measures, the defendant can indirectly enforce the defendant's recommendation of corrective measures and the result thereof through a public announcement to the general public (Article 33 of the same Act) and can not take the means of administrative punishment or of administrative compulsory execution or immediate compulsory execution (Article 33 of the same Act). However, it can be said that it is insufficient to secure its effectiveness. However, the elements of securing the effectiveness of administration cannot be regarded as an essential sign that determines the nature of administrative disposition, and the above indirect compulsory enforcement means can be said to be in place. Accordingly, the defendant's recommendation of corrective measures cannot deny the administrative disposition.

Therefore, the defendant's recommendation for corrective measures of this case, which recommended the plaintiff Jeju-do to establish and implement measures to prevent the recurrence of mental and material damage and sexual harassment received by the intervenor, is taking the form of recommendation, but it constitutes an administrative disposition that causes changes in the legal status by imposing legal obligations on the plaintiff Jeju-do.

(4) Conclusion

Ultimately, since the instant disposition constitutes an administrative disposition that directly changes the rights and duties of the people, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant disposition is not an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation is without merit.

4. Judgment on the main claim

A. Facts of recognition

Gap evidence 2, evidence 3-3, evidence 7, evidence 14, evidence 12-1 through 4, evidence 20-1, evidence 2, Eul 10 through 7, evidence 16-1, evidence 2, evidence 7 through 25, Eul 17 through 27, evidence 13, evidence 8, evidence 13-9, evidence 13, evidence 14, Eul 16-3, part of evidence 26, evidence 12-1 through 4, evidence 3-1, evidence 4-1, evidence 6-4, evidence 5-1, evidence 6-4, evidence 5-1, evidence 6-4, evidence 5-1, evidence 5-1, evidence 6-4, evidence 5-1, evidence 5-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 5-4, evidence 5-1, evidence 6-4, evidence 5-1, evidence 6-4, evidence 6-4, evidence 5-13, and 4-1, evidence 6-4, evidence 5-1, evidence 4

(1) The relationship between the plaintiff 1 and the intervenor

The Intervenor was in charge of the Director-General of the Korea-U.S. Civil Society from April 21, 1989 to April 30, 1992, and from April 25, 2001 to April 2002, when operating the beauty room in Jeju-si, the Intervenor was in charge of the Director-General of the Korean-U.S. Civil Society from April 21, 1989 to April 25, 2001. However, at the time when Plaintiff 1 was in office as Jeju-U.S. Governor, the Intervenor became aware of the fact that the Intervenor was in a position as the Director-General of the Korean-U.S. Civil Society Branch, and thereafter, the Intervenor was in charge of the Intervenor’s official position on his own from November 14, 2001, the Intervenor called Plaintiff 1 and the Intervenor’s official position on his own from January 17, 2002.

(2) Plaintiff 1’s request for visit

On January 17, 2002, the plaintiff 1 asked the participants to visit the plaintiff 1 by visiting the plaintiff 1. On January 18, 2002, the plaintiff 1 asked the participants to visit the plaintiff 1. On January 18, 2002, the director general of the public health and welfare department of Jeju-do and the director general of the women's policy department of Jeju-do requested the intervenors to visit the Do office once again. On January 25, 2002, the plaintiff 1 instructed the participants to visit the plaintiff 1, and requested that the plaintiff 1 visit the plaintiff 1, and then the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 met with the intervenor on January 25, 2002.

(3) The first interview and sexual harassment committed on January 25, 2002

On January 25, 2002, the intervenor visited the Jeju Do governor's office and interview with the plaintiff 1 on January 15:10, 2002. The Jeju Do governor's office, which held the above interview, is connected with the interview room in a long rectangular form, one door is connected with the other door room. The above office room is connected with the interview room, and there is a table for a meeting in a rectangular form, and the plaintiff 1 sits at the end of the office room, and the intervenor goes through the secret room, and the interview was divided into 90 degrees on the left side of the plaintiff 1's office. However, the plaintiff 1 tried to cut the part of the intervenor's back to the right side of the intervenor's hand and the part of the plaintiff's back to the left hand, and the plaintiff 1 tried to get out the part of the plaintiff 1's chest and the plaintiff 1's chest back to the left hand.

During the above interview, Plaintiff 1 and the Intervenor divided the following questions: question of perjury visit, criticism on the attitude of the Director of Health, Welfare and Women's Bureau in the Korea Culture System, lack of service personnel by the heads of other organizations, and the behavior that Plaintiff 1 look at in the events of women's organizations. Plaintiff 1 got after the interview, and Plaintiff 1 gifted to the intervenors after the interview, and the Intervenor returned to the President of Health, Welfare and Women's Republic of Korea and the Director of the Women's Policy Department after the interview.

(4) Progress after the first interview

The intervenor, on the same day, expressed the above facts to the non-party, who is a friendship on the 29th day of the same month, and made a request for an interview with the plaintiff 1 on February 4 of the same year to the head of the skin management room, who is in the beauty room of the intervenor's management, to the Lee Jong-hee on the 26th day of the same month, to the head of the women's policy division, to the great father, Kim Bo-ri, Kim Jong-ri, Kim Jong-ri, etc. on the 27th day of the same month, and to record in order to secure evidence. On the same day, the plaintiff 1 made a direct telephone to the intervenor and agreed to interview with the plaintiff 1 on May 16

(5) The second interview and recording of February 5, 2002

참가인은 2002. 2. 5. 16:00경 원고 1의 집무실을 방문하여 원고 1 모르게 원고 1과의 대화 내용을 약 22분간 녹음하였는데, 참가인이 "심장이 쿵쾅쿵쾅 뛰고", "지사님, 제 가슴에 손을 넣습니까", "지사님, 그래도 동생으로 생각한다고 해도 어떻게 세상에 제 가슴에 손을 그렇게 넣습니까", "지사님이 처음에 제 가슴에 손을 댔을 때도 제가 지사님 한 번 때렸지예", "두번째에도 그렇게 할 때 제가 두 손 모아 놓고, 지사님한테 우리 모아 놓고 얘기하자고 하지 않았수과예"라고 하면서 원고 1이 참가인의 가슴을 만졌다는 취지로 수 차례에 걸쳐 항의함에도 이를 부정하거나 자신이 언제 가슴에 손을 넣었느냐고 반문하지 않고 "너 오래간만에 만났고 가깝고 이렇게 하니까 내가 이렇게 한 거지", "동생이 없으니까 어, 그런 생각에서 한 것이지, 다른 사람을 어떻게", "미안하다", "한 대 쥐어박을래. 분풀리게", "그냥 나이 많은 오빠가 요렇게 한 것도 그렇게 나쁜 게 아니야. 좋아서. 어? 다른 의미가 없는 거니까 그지? 내가 무슨 나쁜 생각을 해서 그러면 죄를 받지"라는 등으로 말하였다.

(6) Plaintiff 1’s accusation, etc.

On February 14, 2002, the intervenor consulted with the Women's Counseling Center Chief Kim Jong-soo affiliated with the Jeju Residents' Association, and filed a request for correction to the defendant on the 21st of the same month. On the same day, the Jeju Residents' Association announced that "the plaintiff 1 committed sexual indecent act to unfold the intervenor's tables second trends and to fill the chest on the intervenor's hand on the 22th of the same month," and corrected it to the second step through the reporter's dog. Accordingly, the plaintiff 1 and the Jeju Residents' Council's Joint Representatives Kim Jong-hee and Policy Chairperson were not aware that the intervenor's chest was breast in spite of the fact that the plaintiff 1 did not have only the intervenor's chest, but only the chest was found in the process of investigating the intervenor's chest, and most of the Jeju Prosecutors' Office was not aware of the facts that the intervenor's report was made on May 1, 200, and it did not seem to have been in contact with the intervenor's investigation records.

(7) Criminal judgment against the plaintiff 1

Plaintiff 1, July 4, 2003, in the case of violation of the Election of Jeju District Court Decision 2002Kahap190, the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Unlawful Act, the Jeju Do governor decided on July 4, 200 that “the Intervenor was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million on September 9, 109, when the Intervenor was sentenced to the punishment of a fine of KRW 203,436 on September 26, 2007, the judgment of dismissal of the appeal was finalized on April 36, 2007 by the above Supreme Court Decision 203Do436 decided on April 36, 2004.

B. Relevant statutes

The former Prohibition of and Remedies for Gender Discrimination Act (amended by Act No. 6915 of May 29, 2003)

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Act is to realize gender equality in all areas of society by prohibiting gender discrimination in employment, education, provision and use of goods, facilities, services, etc., and in the execution of laws and policies in accordance with the principle of gender equality in the Constitution, and by relieveing victims' rights and interests thereby.

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

2. The term "sexual harassment" means that a working person, employer or worker of a public agency makes him feel sexual humiliation or repact by using his position or in relation with his duties, etc., or giving him disadvantage in employment on account of non-compliance with the sexual speech, behavior or other demands, etc.;

3. The term "public agencies" means State agencies, local governments, and other public organizations prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 7 (Prohibition, etc. of Sexual Harassment)

(1) No employee, employer or worker of a public institution shall engage in sexual harassment.

(2) The heads of public agencies and employers shall devise necessary measures, such as conducting the education for preventing sexual harassment under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

(3) Sexual harassment shall be deemed sexual harassment separately.

Article 21 (Application, etc. for Correction of Discriminatory Matters)

(1) Any person who has suffered damage by gender in violation of the provisions of Articles 3 through 7 (limited to natural persons) may apply to the Commission for a correction under this Act.

Article 28 (Recommendation of Corrective Measures and Expression of Opinions)

(1) Where there exist reasonable grounds that they fall under the matters of gender discrimination as a result of the investigation under Article 22, the Commission shall determine that they are gender discrimination and recommend the heads of the relevant public institutions or employers to take measures necessary for correction.

(2) The corrective measures under paragraph (1) shall be as follows:

1. Suspension of gender discrimination;

2. Reinstatement, compensation for damage, or other necessary remedies;

3. Measures for the education to prevent recurrence and the establishment of countermeasures;

4. Publication in advertisement column of daily newspapers;

5. Other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

(3) When the Committee finds that improvement of Acts and subordinate statutes, systems, policies, etc. is deemed necessary in the course of investigating and determining matters on discrimination between men and women, or that unfair acts or violations of the provisions of this Act are likely to be committed, it may recommend reasonable improvement or present opinions thereon to the head or

Article 29 (Opportunities to Present Opinions)

The Committee shall, before recommending corrective measures to the head or user of a public institution pursuant to Article 28 (1), provide the head, user, applicant, or interested party of the relevant public institution with an opportunity to submit his/her opinion in advance.

Enforcement Decree of the former Prohibition of and Remedies for Gender Discrimination Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18102 of September 19, 2003)

Article 23 (Opportunities to Present Opinions)

When the Committee provides an opportunity to present opinions pursuant to Article 29 of the Act, it shall notify the head of the relevant public institution, user, applicant, or interested party of matters concerning the date, place, etc. of presenting opinions.

(c) Markets:

(1) Determination on the relevance to duties, etc.

Article 2(2) of the Gender Discrimination Act provides that "sexual harassment means that a person working for, an employer or an employee of a public agency in a job, employment and other relations causes sexual humiliation or repugion by using his position or sexual speech or behavior in relation to his duties, etc., or gives disadvantages in employment on account of failing to comply with a sexual speech or behavior or any other demand, etc." Thus, in this case, it is examined whether the first interview between the plaintiff 1 and the intervenor was conducted by using the position of the Do governor as the employee of the public agency or related to the employment and other relations."

(A) First, Plaintiff 1 was the incumbent Do Governor, and the intervenor was in the position of the head of the occupational organization as the head of the Korea-U.S. Si branch of the Korea-U.S. Society as Jeju-do residents, and the intervenor was in the position of the head of the occupational organization in around 1991, and the intervenor was only in several official events after Plaintiff 1 was in the qualification of the head of the Korea-U.S. Si branch of the Korea-U.S. Society as the Jeju Do Governor around 1991 and became aware of the official position at the time when the plaintiff 1 was in the official position, and there was no individual fact, and even if Plaintiff 1 was in the interview with the intervenor, the intervenor's name was 'I.S.' and it was not based on the verbal habits of Plaintiff 1's speech-related relationship with the other party to the interview. It is difficult to accept the intervenor's assertion that the interview was conducted in the office of the Do governor during the business hours of Plaintiff 1's work as the plaintiff 1's qualification and the plaintiff 1.

(B) Next, the plaintiff 1 instructed the plaintiff 1 to make a visit to the intervenor at the request of the public official who is a public official belonging to Jeju-do. The interview took place at the request of the public official who received the direction; the Korean-U.S. government branch of the Korean-U.S. Society was a place where the members' beauty room has more than 600 rooms and the public opinion has been disseminated through the participation of women; and the intervenor, who was the head of the Jeju-U.S. government branch, was at the place where he can exercise influence over the members' beauty room; as at the time of the front of the election of the head of the local government, the plaintiff 1 actively requested an interview to the intervenor, who is the head of the local government, to support and change the above election; the plaintiff 1 was an individual interview to hear the opinions of the persons related to the private organization or those who will assist in the ruling; the plaintiff 1 had an influence on the plaintiff 1's health and welfare association's health interview with the intervenor; the details of the interview with the plaintiff 1 p.

(C) On the other hand, sexual harassment under the Act on the Prohibition of Gender Discrimination does not limit the scope of its application to the business and employment relationship, and it does not require that the sexual harassment would merely cause disadvantages in employment or aggravation of the employment environment, but constitutes prohibited objects, and the meaning of "using his/her status" in Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Prohibition of Gender Discrimination should be deemed to include the abuse of his/her authority other than just use. In light of the above, the business relationship under the Act on the Prohibition of Gender Discrimination should be interpreted as the specific business relationship to the extent that he/she may have direct influence, such as disadvantage in employment, etc., to the other party.

In full view of the above discussions, the first interview between the plaintiff 1 and the intervenor is conducted in relation to the business, employment and other relations under the Act on the Prohibition of Gender Discrimination.

(2) Determination as to sexual harassment

(A) Whether an act constitutes sexual harassment ought to be determined depending on whether the act is permissible in light of the sound common sense and practice of the community, i.e., whether it violates good morals or social order (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da39533 delivered on February 10, 1998) by taking into account the specific circumstances, such as the age or relation of both parties, place and situation where the act was committed, whether the act was sexually committed, whether the act was sexually committed, whether the act was committed, whether the act was in violation of good customs or social order (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da39533 delivered on February 10, 1998).

(B) In addition, sexual speech and behavior refers to the physical, verbal, and visual act in which the other party does not want the sexual meaning, and if the other party feel sexual humiliation or aversion due to such sexual speech and behavior, sexual harassment under the Prevention of Gender Discrimination Act is established. In full view of specific circumstances, such as the nature of the interview in this case, the relationship between the plaintiff 1 and the intervenor, the time and place of the interview, and the situation at the time when the plaintiff 1 did the act in this case, the intervenor's response, sexual motive, or intent, etc., the act of the plaintiff 1 taking the intervenor's chest in the office of the Do governor is in violation of good customs or social order, and it is sufficient for the intervenor to feel sexual humiliation or aversion, and thus, it constitutes sexual harassment under the Prevention of Gender Discrimination Act.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(3) Determination of violation of procedural and equitable principles

Considering the overall purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 8, 9, 14, and 28-1 through 6 of the evidence Nos. 8, 28, Plaintiff 1 was a party to sexual harassment at the same time and was in the position of the head of Jeju-do, a public institution. In the course of investigating the application for correction of this case, Plaintiff 1 appeared and submitted to the Defendant on March 18, 2002. On the 28th of the same month, the Jeju-do Office received the Intervenor’s request for correction from the public official authority of the public official belonging to the Defendant and asked questions about the contents of the Intervenor’s request for correction, and signed and sealed the written statement. The Defendant did not err in the misapprehension of the principle of equity, since it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the plaintiffs’ request for correction.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the primary claim of the plaintiffs is without merit.

5. Determination on the conjunctive claim

The plaintiffs sought revocation of the ruling of this case in preliminary case, but it is only limited to the case where the administrative disposition of this case is not recognized, and there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the ruling of this case itself was unique to the ruling of this case. Therefore, the plaintiffs' preliminary claim is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Judge)