1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was newly appointed as a teacher on September 1, 198 and served as a teacher at a school under his/her jurisdiction on March 1, 2012 and transferred to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Student Education Center on March 1, 2012, and served as the head of the office of education and operation of the above B Education Center under his/her control (hereinafter “instant Education Center”) until March 3, 2013, and the same year.

3.4.1:

9. By the end of 30.30, the director of the instant education center, who has overall control over the pertinent institution, and has been in charge of leading subordinate employees.

B. The instant education center is a local branch of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Student Education Center located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and has been used as a faculty member or a training institute for students such as the number of faculty members, juvenile organization activities, and school travel activities, etc. since its opening in 1975, and is composed of 60 training instructors and 20 other employees, respectively.

C. On September 17, 2014, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act, the duty of good faith and the code of conduct for public officials (hereinafter “instant order”) under Article 7 (Prohibition of Use of Official Positions for Purposes other than Purpose of Budget), Article 10 (Prohibition of Private Use of Office), Article 11 (Prohibition of Brokerage, Solicitation, etc.), and Article 13 (Prohibition of Private Use of Public Goods).

[Facts of disciplinary action] The suspect (referring to the plaintiff) was at a position where his/her subordinate employees should guide and supervise his/her subordinate employees to faithfully perform the duties assigned to him/her so that he/she can exercise fair and smooth guidance so that he/she can smoothly carry out the duties. However, despite the fact that he/she had been forced his/her subordinate employees to do an act outside the scope of his/her duties so that he/she could lead to a conflict between him/herself and the members of the workplace, thereby causing a group civil petition (30 persons who have filed a petition).