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 1, 1983, the Plaintiff was appointed as a middle school teacher, and from March 1, 2017, the Plaintiff served as a D High School teacher in Osan-si C.

B. On September 21, 2017, the Gyeonggi-do General Disciplinary Committee for Public Educational Officials decided to dismiss the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act (Duty to Maintain Dignity), Article 78 of the State Public Officials Act, and Article 2 of the Rules on Disciplinary Measures against Public Educational Officials (Criteria for Disciplinary Measures). Accordingly, on September 29, 2017, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff from office (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal review with the Teachers’ Appeal Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on December 27, 2017.

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff did not have made the same remarks or actions as the grounds for the instant disciplinary action. However, some of the remarks or actions were distorted.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful due to the absence of the grounds for disciplinary action.

B. Even if the grounds for disciplinary action of this case are recognized, the disposition of this case is deemed to have abused discretion in violation of the principle of proportionality, taking into account the following: (a) the type and degree of the relevant misconduct is minor; (b) the Plaintiff has faithfully been living in school without being subject to the disciplinary action; and (c) the Plaintiff is against his depth.

3. The entry in the relevant legislation (attached Form 2) is as follows.

4. Determination

A. The fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis as to the existence of the grounds for disposition 1 is a flexible evidence, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the facts are contrary to the facts, unless there are special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the criminal trial.