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 Chigh School Teachers on March 1, 1995, and was promoted to an assistant principal on September 1, 2012.

B. On October 18, 2013, the Busan Metropolitan Office of Education requested the Plaintiff to take a heavy disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that the following grounds for disciplinary action have occurred as a result of civil petition investigation.

B On January 6, 2014, a disciplinary measure was taken against the Plaintiff for two months of reduction of salary, following the grounds for disciplinary action.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). Around 18:00 on July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff went through the mixed-level-based-level-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based

Article 31 (8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Article 56 (Duty of Fidelity), and Article 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act, Article 2 [Attached Table] of the Rules concerning Disciplinary Action on Public Educational Officials, etc.

7. Violation of the duty to maintain dignity and Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials.

C. On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition review with the Defendant on February 11, 2014, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “The grounds for disciplinary action are recognized as having violated Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith) and 63 (Duty of Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act, and the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension from office for one month as a result of injuring a student on February 8, 2013.”

(hereinafter “instant decision”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1.

2. Whether the decision of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disciplinary action is unlawful for the following reasons, and the Defendant’s decision otherwise determined is unlawful.

1. The Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the cause of disciplinary action is called “Ara” and speaks against the Plaintiff.