The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was newly appointed as a teacher on March 28, 1986 and served as a scientific teacher from March 1, 2018 to B middle school.

B. On September 29, 2018, the presidential police station notified the Defendant of the fact that “the Plaintiff commenced an investigation under suspicion of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Acts such as Fraudulent Means, etc.).”

(hereinafter “instant suspected facts”) C.

Accordingly, on October 4, 2018, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff from office (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 73-3(1)6 of the State Public Officials Act.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an appeal review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers, but the Appeal Commission for Teachers dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 12, 2018.

E. On December 13, 2018, the administrative office of the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a disposition of no suspicion against the instant suspected crime, and notified the Defendant of such fact. On December 14, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of returning the Plaintiff to the former position.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

(a)as shown in the relevant laws and regulations attached to the relevant regulations;

B. The Defendant issued a new position on December 14, 2018 to the Plaintiff whose position was removed by the instant disposition.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit seeking revocation.

C. 1) The removal from position under the State Public Officials Act refers to a provisional measure that prevents a public official from engaging in his/her duties because he/she has a reason not to maintain his/her position continuously and fails to temporarily assign his/her position to the relevant public official. In cases where the reason for the removal from position ceases to exist and the appointing authority again assigns a position, the existing removal from position becomes void (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da25590, Sept. 26, 1997).