1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 21, 197, the Plaintiff was appointed as a public educational official on March 1, 201, and served as an assistant principal of B elementary school until August 31, 2014, and was promoted to C elementary school principal on September 1, 2014.

B. On December 15, 2016, the Defendant issued a disciplinary disposition of dismissal (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 78-2 of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 13288, May 18, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) pursuant to Article 78-2 of the same Act and Article 78-2 of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 13288, May 18, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) 25,719,30 [the Plaintiff] under Article 56 (Duty of Fidelity) and Article 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act, as shown in attached Tables A through (e), and Article 78-2 of the State Public Officials Act.

C. On December 29, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and the said disposition of imposing disciplinary surcharge, and filed an appeal with the Appeal Committee for Teachers on December 29, 2016. On February 22, 2017, the Appeal Committee for Teachers was deemed to have only the grounds for disciplinary action specified in attached Tables A through D (hereinafter referred to as “instant grounds for disciplinary action,” but the Plaintiff dismissed all the Plaintiff’s petition review on the ground that the said grounds for disciplinary action are not excessive and appropriate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The remaining grounds of disciplinary action, excluding the part that “the Plaintiff has disturbed accounting order, such as using (use) public funds equivalent to KRW 8,373,100,” among the grounds of disciplinary action in the instant case where there is no grounds of disciplinary action, cannot be acknowledged for the following reasons.