1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 18,003,704 for Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 14,229,332 for Plaintiff B and each of the said money, from January 15, 2014 to January 15, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2009, the Defendant’s superintendent of education promoted a plan for the operation of retired teachers, etc. as “booming officer” for the purpose of creating a safe and enjoyable educational environment. The Defendant issued each school principal within the jurisdiction with the operation period, allocation standards, qualification requirements, budget allocation details, etc. specifying the operation plan, and ordered each school principal to recruit the learning supervisor.

B. The principal of each school established and operated by the Defendant with the Defendant’s instructions and budgetary support from 208 to 201, and from 2012 to 22th of each month (payment of KRW 30,000 per day) and working hours from 08:0 to 16:00 (i.e., adjustment according to the school circumstances, eight hours). The qualification is “retirement teachers, retired police officers, and a person holding a certificate of qualification for counseling, etc.” but the qualification is “qualified persons falling under any cause for disqualification prescribed in Article 33 of the State Public Officials Act, persons who are difficult to ensure fairness in the student guidance by engaging in business related to students in school areas, and persons who are deemed unfit for the student guidance, and persons who are selected as learning managers through the examination of the first and second documents.”

C. Plaintiff A was commissioned as a guardian on July 22, 2010, and worked at C elementary school under the Defendant’s control until December 31, 2013. Plaintiff B was commissioned as a guardian on January 4, 2012, and served at D elementary school under the Defendant’s control until December 31, 2013. During the aforementioned working period, the Plaintiffs worked at the D elementary school under the Defendant’s control during each school’s school’s principal’s supervision during the aforementioned working period and retired at around 16:00, the Plaintiffs worked at around 08:00, and were in charge of the direction of students, traffic safety guidance, school violence and other internal and foreign activities, school violence patrol, guidance and guidance for the protection of victim students, and guidance for the prevention of flight students from the date of 2011.