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 March 20, 1983, the Plaintiff was newly employed as an elementary school teacher and served as a teacher beginning elementary school B, and was promoted to an elementary school assistant principal on March 1, 201 and served as a assistant principal of C elementary school from March 1, 2013.

B. On November 17, 2015, the Gyeonggi-do General Disciplinary Committee on Public Educational Officials, upon the Defendant’s request for a disciplinary resolution, decided to dismiss the Plaintiff from office on the ground that “the Plaintiff found D as a class in the condition that the Plaintiff was under the influence of the preceding math on October 2013 (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”) and left D to the body, such as making D and dancing in the singing room, and making D and dance, and thereby making D feel sexual humiliation (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”; and, in addition, “the instant Disciplinary Reason 2” was collectively referred to as “the instant Disciplinary Reason”).

C. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 78(1)3 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 15 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials, Articles 2 and 4 of the former Rules on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education No. 61, Apr. 9, 2015; hereinafter “former Rules on Disciplinary Action”).

(hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case") d.

The Defendant appealed against the instant disposition and filed an appeal review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers, but the Appeal Commission for Teachers decided to dismiss the said request on February 3, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. As to the ground for disciplinary action No. 1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, the Plaintiff committed an act falling under the ground for disciplinary action No. 1, such as: (a) although there was a fact that the Plaintiff, on June 13, 2013, made D’s lusium and her even died, there was no intention to commit an indecent act; and (b) around October 2013, the Plaintiff committed an act falling under the ground for disciplinary action No. 1.