1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff was appointed to a middle school principal by the President on September 1, 2009 (the appointment period: from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2013) and served as the head of Goyang-si B middle school from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2013.

On August 7, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted documents related to the appointment of the principal to the Gyeonggi-do High School Education Office pursuant to Article 29-2 (3) of the Public Educational Officials Act that “the principal may serve only once” with the expiration date of the term of appointment of the principal, and the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education submitted to the Defendant a proposal for appointment of the principal, including the Plaintiff, for the appointment of the principal.

On August 23, 2013, the Defendant decided not to recommend the President to recommend the appointment of the principal of a school to the President on the ground that the Plaintiff had been subject to reprimand as of June 19, 2013. On September 1, 2013, the Defendant appointed the Plaintiff as the senior teacher as prescribed in Article 29-2(5) of the Public Educational Officials Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s principal safety defense is unlawful in the instant lawsuit, since the Defendant’s act of excluding the Plaintiff from those subject to a recommendation to recommend the principal of a school is merely an internal decision-making of an administrative agency,

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. According to Article 29-2(1) and (3) of the Public Educational Officials Act, the principal may be reappointed only once, and the appointment is made by the President at the recommendation of the Minister of Education. According to this provision, the proposal for appointment made by the Minister of Education for the President is only one of the internal decision-making processes between the Minister of Education and the President, and the proposal for appointment made by the Minister of Education for the President is merely one of the internal decision-making processes between the Minister of Education and the President, and it does not directly result in any change in existing

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9640 delivered on June 27, 1989).