2013 43 Requests for cancellation of orders to discharge Duties

A Superintendent of Education

The Minister of Education

September 10, 2015

The Defendant’s order to perform duties against the Plaintiff on April 18, 2013 is revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the instant order to perform duties

The following facts are either disputed between the parties or acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 69 (number omitted) and the whole purport of the pleadings.

(a) Amendment of the Defendant’s Guidelines for the Preparation and Management of School Records (1) to the Defendant’s school life records on January 27, 2012; measures against aggressor students of school violence at the Autonomous Committee for Countermeasures against School Violence as provided for in each subparagraph of Article 17(1) of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence;

The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology No. 239 amended the Guidelines for the Preparation and Management of School Records Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Guideline of this case") to make the records of the matters and use them as data for life guidance and higher school admission to students (hereinafter referred to as the "Guidelines of this case"). The main contents are as follows: (a) Transfer to another school, expulsion from school, and special social service in the column of "a special clause of entry into school"; and (b) transfer to another school, expulsion from school," and special clause of "a special clause of entry into school."

An elementary school and a middle school shall preserve for five years after graduation and a high school shall preserve the guidelines of this case (2) on June 29, 2012 in accordance with the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Directive No. 257 of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Directive No. 257, and in the case of a high school, the preservation period for school life records was changed from ten years after graduation to five years after graduation.

B. On February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff requested on February 15, 2012 to reconsider the records of school violence disciplinary action to the Defendant. In addition, on July 9, 2012, the National Human Rights Commission held the 14th electric power resource committee to recommend a comprehensive policy to create human rights-friendly school culture, and the content of the decision should include that “the school violence record should be amended to prevent the school violence record from being subject to any other human rights infringement, such as introducing the deletion review system or interim deletion system prior to graduation.”

On the basis of this, on August 9, 2012, the Plaintiff sent an official door stating that "(former name: the Ministry of Education (former name: the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology; hereinafter the same shall apply)" to the Office of Education and the schools of each level and schools at each level shall withhold records of school violence in school records until future policies of the Office of Education are established." (hereinafter referred to as "land reserved in this case").

C. On August 16, 2012, the Defendant notified the National Human Rights Commission of the policy recommendation for the creation of human rights-friendly school culture, the Defendant issued a corrective order with the content that “the recommendation for the entry of school violence in school life” among “the recommendation for comprehensive policies to create a human rights-friendly school culture,” to the Plaintiff on August 23, 2012, “the Plaintiff has cancelled the direction for the entry of school life records announced to the school at his/her office of education,” and “the Plaintiff has issued a corrective order with the school and office of education to enter the countermeasures against school violence in school life records by August 24, 2012.”

As the Plaintiff did not comply with the instant corrective order, on August 27, 2012, the Defendant revoked ex officio the Plaintiff’s land in the instant reserved area on the ground that the principal’s school principal’s case should be prepared and managed in accordance with Article 25 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and that it did not arbitrarily be determined by the Superintendent of an Office of Education (hereinafter “instant revocation disposition”).

D. A. From August 28, 2012 to September 13, 2012, the Defendant requested a specific audit and disposition (1) conducted a specific audit and conducted a specific audit with respect to the A. Office of Education to point out the following:

(a) Unfair conduct in relation to the entry of school violence students' school records;

(1) Details of disposition: Institutional warning and heavy disciplinary action.

(2) Objects subject to heavy disciplinary action: The director of the Education Bureau B, school inspector C, school inspector C, former (former) school tuition support, school inspector D (former A Educational Training Institute), former (former A Educational Training Institute), teaching learning support, school inspector E (former F High School), teaching support, school inspector G, representative contract worker 4 H (b) school violence student in class 4 (b) school records.

(1) Details of disposition: Heavy disciplinary measure, minor disciplinary measure, and warning.

(2) Objects of heavy disciplinary action: Eight persons, including the President of International Science and Technology J, etc.

(3) Objects of minor disciplinary action: K high assistant principals L and M high assistant principals N.

(4) Subject to warning: [Unjustifiable service of 33 public officials, including 0 assistant principals of scientific high school, etc. (c)];

(1) Details of disposition: Minor disciplinary action.

(2) Object of minor disciplinary action: defamation by the Ministry of Education Audit and Inspection, including Q from the head of a P Office of Education, etc. (D)

(1) Details of disposition: Heavy disciplinary action;

(2) Subject to heavy disciplinary action: On October 16, 2012, the defendant of class 4 H (2) in the representative contract position : on the basis of the results of a specific audit conducted by the A Office of Education, the defendant ordered the A Office of Education to take measures for warning and submit the results of other dispositions. On the other hand, the defendant requested the A Office of Education to take disciplinary action against the principal, etc. of a general disciplinary committee under the jurisdiction of the A Office of Education who is a person subject to disciplinary action among persons subject to disciplinary action belonging to the A Office of Education within one month, and the disciplinary action shall be taken within one month, and ② the head of a district office of education, a person subject to special disciplinary action under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, a City/Do Office of Education, the director of an Office of Education, and a subordinate person shall immediately request the Ministry of Education for disciplinary resolution pursuant to Article 51 (1)

E. On November 22, 2012, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to immediately file a request for a disciplinary decision on a disciplinary case under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education pursuant to Article 51(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act with the head of the District Office of Education, the director of the Office of Education of the City/Do Office of Education, and its subordinate. However, the Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the request on November 27, 2012, based on Article 170 of the Local Autonomy Act, issued an order to perform duties with the Ministry of Education to request a disciplinary decision on a disciplinary case under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education (hereinafter “prior order to perform duties”). On November 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for objection against the order to perform duties under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education pursuant to Article 170(3) of the Local Autonomy Act (hereinafter “the head of the Office of Education and the Director of the Provincial Office of Education and the Director of the Provincial Office of Education”).

(a) Unfair conduct in relation to the entry of school violence students' school records;

(1) Objects of heavy disciplinary action: The director general of the Office of Education, and subordinate persons.

② Specific grounds for disciplinary action: (a) the instant persons subject to disciplinary action violated Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 2-2 and Article 3 of the State Public Officials Service Regulations, and Article 8(3) of the Local Autonomy Act by accepting public documents containing school violence measures in the Ministry of Education; (b) the instant corrective order; and the instant ex officio revocation disposition, without notifying the competent school thereof; and (c) implementing four times a public document pertaining to the instant postponement measures against the Ministry of Education’s policies.

(1) Objects subject to minor disciplinary action: 25 persons, including Q from the head of a District Office of Education.

② Specific grounds for disciplinary action: On August 27, 2012, this part of the persons to be disciplined attended a meeting of the head of a district office of education related to the records of the countermeasures against aggressor students in school violence held at the A Office of Education on August 27, 2012 and a written appeal requesting the Ministry of Education to oppose the school life records of school violence students in the A District Office of Education, Q of the head of a district office of education, etc., and to withdraw the audit, etc., was jointly signed and announced on the website of the Do Office of Education on the same day, thereby violating Article 56

F. (1) On December 5, 2012, the Defendant requested the Special Disciplinary Committee of the Ministry of Education without filing an application for the Plaintiff’s request for a disciplinary resolution. The Ministry of Education issued a written resolution to the Director-General of the Office of Education with respect to B, 2 months of salary reduction, school inspector C, school inspector E, and G, 1 months of salary reduction for each school inspector D, school inspector D, and Q of the head of each Office of Education, and 24 of the other offices of education in each district office of education, respectively, by an unwritten warning, and notified the Plaintiff of the details of the relevant disciplinary resolution and the execution of the disciplinary action pursuant to Article 17 of the Decree on Disciplinary Measures against Public Educational Officials.

(2) On April 18, 2013, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to implement disciplinary action pursuant to Article 17 of the Decree on Disciplinary Measures against Public Educational Officials, but the Plaintiff did not comply with such request. However, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to perform the instant duties by the deadline of May 3, 2013 pursuant to Article 170 of the Local Autonomy Act, stating that the Plaintiff shall execute disciplinary action on the ground that it did not comply with the request.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The superintendent of the Office of Education, such as having discretion to determine whether a public educational official under his/her jurisdiction falls under grounds for disciplinary action, constitutes autonomous affairs, and thus, the Defendant cannot issue an order to perform duties under Article 170(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, which is only possible for state affairs delegated to the State.

B. Since each of the instant disciplinary grounds is clear that it cannot be the grounds for disciplinary action under the law, the Ministry of Education has no obligation to execute the resolution of the Special Disciplinary Committee on the Plaintiff.

C. The defendant's request for disciplinary resolution and the Ministry of Education's special disciplinary resolution need for the plaintiff's disciplinary resolution.

There is no request for the Gu, which is a violation of the disciplinary authority of the superintendent of the Office of Education to the public educational officials belonging to the Office of Education.

3. Determination:

A. According to Article 3 of the Local Education Autonomy Act and Article 170(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, affairs subject to an order of performance of duties, which the Minister of Education may issue to the Superintendent of an Office of Education, are "management and execution of state affairs." In light of the language and text of the provision, the State delegated affairs refer to state affairs delegated to the Superintendent of an Office of Education, etc., i.e., state affairs entrusted to the Superintendent of an Office of Education, etc., (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da206, Jun. 27, 2013). (2) Under the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 11527, Dec. 11, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply), the legislative purpose of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 11527, Jun. 12, 2013) is to provide for special cases concerning the performance of duties, qualifications, and employment of public educational officials for the purpose of conducting education and training.

In addition, according to Article 33(1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act, the Minister of Education may delegate part of his/her right to appoint to the head of an educational administrative agency, etc., as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and Article 3(5)5 of the former Decree on the Appointment of Public Educational Officials (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24547, May 31, 2013) stipulates that the Minister of Education shall delegate his/her authority for appointment concerning promotion, concurrent office, dismissal from position, temporary retirement, and reinstatement of a school inspector or educational researcher belonging to the Superintendent of an Office of Education, and Article 3(5)7 of the former Decree on the Appointment of Public Educational Officials (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24547, May 31, 2013) to the Superintendent of an Office of Education, respectively.

In light of the nature of disciplinary affairs of public educational officials, and the form and content of the regulations under the Public Educational Officials Act concerning the delegation of authority, etc., it is reasonable to deem that disciplinary action against the head of the district office of education, the head of the City/Do office of education, the director of the education bureau of the relevant subordinate office, and school inspectors, and school inspectors, who are subordinate public officials, is State affairs, and the execution of disciplinary action against some of them also constitutes State affairs. Therefore, the execution of disciplinary action against the head of the district office of education, the head of the education office of the City/Do office of education, the director of the education office of the relevant subordinate office of education, and its subordinate officers, shall be deemed to be a state affairs delegated by the agency (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du213, Feb. 27, 2014). Accordingly, the instant order to perform duties is related to state affairs delegated by the agency and constitutes affairs subject to an order to perform

(b) Whether he/she has an obligation to perform his/her duties (1)

The main text of Article 51(1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act provides that the head of an educational institution, an educational administrative agency, a local government, or an educational research institution (hereinafter referred to as the "head of an educational institution, etc.") shall, without delay, request a disciplinary committee having jurisdiction over the relevant disciplinary case to make a disciplinary decision when he/she deems that the public educational official under his/her jurisdiction falls under any cause for disciplinary action referred to in any subparagraph of Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act and any subparagraph of Article 69(1) of the Local Public Officials Act. In addition, Article 16(1) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials provides that when the disciplinary committee makes a disciplinary decision, he/she shall immediately notify the person who has the authority to make a disciplinary decision along with an authentic copy of the written disciplinary decision, and Article 17(1) of the same Act provides that a person who has the authority to make a disciplinary decision shall execute it within 15 days from the date of receipt of the written disciplinary decision.

In addition to the fact that Article 17(1) of the Decree on Disciplinary Measures against Public Educational Officials provides that a disciplinary authority shall execute a disciplinary resolution within 15 days from the date on which the disciplinary authority receives a written disciplinary resolution from the disciplinary committee, the legislative intent of Article 17(1) of the same Decree is to protect the rights and interests of public educational officials by checking the arbitrary operation of the disciplinary authority and to promote the rationality of procedures and fair operation of disciplinary measures so as to ensure fairness in disciplinary action as well as to protect the rights and interests of public educational officials. (2) The disciplinary authority notified of a written disciplinary resolution can file a request for review or reexamination only when it is deemed that the relevant disciplinary resolution is minor under Article 82(2) of the State Public Officials Act. In full view of the foregoing provisions, if the head of an educational institution, etc. is notified of a written disciplinary resolution from the disciplinary committee, he/she is obligated to execute it within the statutory deadline, unless there are special circumstances such as legal and de facto obstacles that could not execute the relevant disciplinary resolution (see Supreme Court Decisions 2014Do2229, Apr. 10, 2

(2) Whether there is a reason for the instant disciplinary action (A)

1) First, we examine the legal nature of guidance and supervision over the preparation of school life records by the superintendent of education, which are the contents of the grounds for disciplinary action in this part.

In order to determine whether affairs are autonomous affairs or delegated affairs, the head of a local government shall first consider the form and purport of the provisions of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes in order to determine whether such affairs are affairs that the head of a local government performs is autonomous affairs or delegated affairs of an agency. However, other factors such as whether the nature of such affairs requires the whole country to deal with affairs, bearing the relevant expenses, and who is the subject of final responsibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du10483, Apr. 22, 2003; 201Du566, May 23, 2013).

The purpose of Article 17 of the Framework Act on Education is to prescribe the rights and duties of citizens and the responsibilities of the State and local governments with respect to education, and to prescribe the basic matters concerning the educational system and the operation thereof, “the State and local governments” do not present clear criteria for the State affairs and the affairs of local governments among the affairs concerning guidance and supervision of schools by providing guidance and supervision to schools and social educational facilities. In addition, pursuant to Article 9(4) of the Framework Act on Education, the former Elementary and Secondary Education (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) enacted for the purpose of prescribing matters concerning elementary and secondary education pursuant to Article 9(4) of the Framework Act on Education shall be subject to guidance and supervision by the Minister of Education, and public and private schools shall be subject to guidance and supervision by the superintendent of education.

However, according to Article 25 of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the head of a school shall comprehensively observe and evaluate the academic achievement degree and personality (personality) of students to be used for guiding and selecting students of higher level, and shall prepare and manage personal information, school register status, qualification certificate and acquisition status, curriculum development status, behavior characteristics, comprehensive opinion, and other data prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education within the extent necessary for educational purpose according to the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education (Paragraph 1). The head of a school shall prepare and manage such data through an educational information system (Paragraph 2). According to Article 47(2) of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2423, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2421, Apr. 1, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 22013).

According to the provisions of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the former Higher Education Act, and the former Enforcement Decree on school life records, where a student transfers between Sis/Dos or between national schools and public and private schools, a systematic and uniform management of school life records is required, and where a middle student enters a high school located in another Si/Do, the school life records shall be reflected in high school entrance screening, and the school life records of a high school student shall be used as entrance screening data of universities under the direction and supervision of the defendant. Thus, the affairs related to the preparation of school life records conducted by the head of a school shall be handled uniformly for the benefit of the whole citizens.

Therefore, the affairs related to the guidance and supervision of a supervisory office on the preparation of school life records that require uniform management throughout the country are affairs of the nature that need uniform management for the benefit of the whole citizens. Thus, the affairs related to the guidance and supervision of the superintendent of education on the preparation of school life records conducted by the head of public and private school shall be interpreted as affairs delegated to the superintendent of education of the City/Do as affairs related to the preparation of school life records conducted by the head of the national school, just as affairs concerning the guidance and supervision by the Minister of Education concerning the preparation of school life records conducted by the head of the national school (see Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da183, Feb. 27, 2014;

2. Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu213 Decided December 27, 201

2) Meanwhile, according to Article 169 of the Local Autonomy Act, the Minister of Education may file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court against an order or disposition issued or taken in relation to autonomous affairs of the Superintendent of an Office of Education only in violation of the statutes, and (1) the Superintendent of an Office of Education may file a lawsuit against the Supreme Court against the Superintendent of an Office of Education (Paragraph 2). The purport of restricting the scope of the control of the Minister of Education in relation to autonomous affairs to a violation of statutes, and granting the Superintendent of an Office of Education the authority to file a lawsuit against the Superintendent of an Office of Education regarding such control is to recognize the legality control of the State in relation to autonomous affairs and realize the principle of legal administration, while protecting the authority of the superintendent of an Office of Education to execute the autonomous affairs of the Superintendent of an Office of Education. Considering the legislative intent of a lawsuit against the revocation of a disposition under Article 169 of the Local Autonomy Act, the conclusion that specific execution of affairs

In this case, the Plaintiff, as the superintendent of education, handled the affairs of guidance and supervision on the preparation of school life records by deeming them as autonomous affairs. The instant order is premised on the establishment of grounds for disciplinary action by the instant person subject to partial disciplinary action who assisted the management of affairs by the superintendent of education.

However, the determination of whether affairs are autonomous affairs or delegated affairs by the head of a local government under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes shall take into consideration the form and intent of the provisions of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes. However, the determination should take into account other matters such as whether the nature of affairs requires a uniform operation across the nation, the burden of expenses related thereto, and who is the subject of final responsibility. As such, the classification of affairs related to autonomous affairs and delegated affairs by the head of a local government is not always clear solely based on

According to the interpretation of related Acts and subordinate statutes, guidance and supervision of affairs concerning the preparation of school life records of the superintendent of education falls under the delegated state affairs of the agency. However, considering the legislative intent of the lawsuit against the disposition of revocation as stipulated in Article 169 of the Local Autonomy Act, the Superintendent of an Office of Education did not establish precedents, theories, precedents, etc. as to the nature of guidance and supervision affairs as mentioned above, and carried out affairs by deeming them as autonomous affairs after the fact that the affairs were revealed to be the state affairs entrusted by the agency, it cannot be deemed that the specific performance of affairs conducted immediately after the fact that the affairs were clearly deemed to be illegal

3) In addition, the language and text of the statute itself is not clear, and there are many opinions. However, in the case of different opinions because of the lack of precedents, theories, precedents, etc., the relevant public official needs to find a reasonable ground after careful deliberation and interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision, and then return to a wrong interpretation. As a result, even if the process is judged to be illegal, it is difficult to expect that the average public official will be responsible for such treatment method, and even if it is judged to be illegal, the establishment of the grounds for the disciplinary action against the relevant public official cannot be recognized even in such cases.

In addition, Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act provides that "All public officials shall comply with laws and regulations and perform their duties faithfully," and Article 57 provides that "public officials shall obey official orders of their superior officers when performing their duties," and imposes them with the duty to obey the law along with the duty to comply.

In addition, as seen earlier, Articles 18 and 27 of the former Local Education Autonomy Act grant the authority to direct and supervise public officials belonging to the superintendent of education. Accordingly, the persons subject to disciplinary action is obligated to obey an official order to the superintendent of education, who is a superior in the course of performing his/her duties, as a public educational official belonging to the AA Office of Education, and cannot be deemed as an official order or order due to an unlawful

Unless there are any circumstances, duties shall be performed under the direction and supervision of the superintendent of education who is a superior in the duties.

Therefore, in a situation where it is unclear whether the guidelines of this case by the defendant are invalid in violation of superior statutes, such as guidance and supervision over the affairs concerning the preparation of school life records of the superintendent of education, whether the guidelines of this case by the defendant are legally effective or not, or the violation of the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution, etc. In such a case where a person to be disciplined is deemed to have the legal nature of the affairs in performing guidance and supervision concerning the preparation of school life records as autonomous affairs while performing the affairs related to the preparation of school life records, and where the act of the person to be disciplined performed his/her duties with the contents of withholding the implementation of the guidelines of this case in accordance with the direction and supervision of the superintendent of education, which is a superior to his/her duties, and thereby becomes deemed to have violated the statutes, it is difficult to deem

4) If so, there is no reason for disciplinary action against this part of the person to be disciplined. (b) Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act limits the public official’s “labor movement or collective action for activities other than public service.” In light of the nature of the public official’s position or duty, it is necessary to restrict the freedom of speech, publication, assembly, and association guaranteed by Article 21(1) of the Constitution rather than the general public, but even in such a case, it shall not be uniformly or completely restricted on the grounds of public interest or necessity. Even if there is such a reason for restriction, the restriction should be limited to the minimum possible extent, and the fundamental substance of the right should not be infringed upon. Accordingly, the “collective action for activities other than public service under the State Public Officials Act” means a collective action for which public official is not a public official but a public official’s duty under the State Public Officials Act, which is not a public official’s duty under the State Public Officials Act.

4. The above legal principle does not change because Article 3(2) of the Regulations on the Service of State Public Officials established pursuant to delegation under Article 67 of the State Public Officials Act provides that "public officials shall not oppose national policies or interfere with the establishment or execution of national policies by collectively, jointly (name) or by using the name of an organization, or by using the name of an organization." This part of the appeals made by the persons subject to disciplinary action on the website of the Provincial Office of Education from an educational point of view, in order to prevent and eradicate school violence, it is necessary to improve the structure or system to prevent and eradicate school violence because the children's side adaptation behavior is not a matter of personal quality, rather than a matter of personal quality, and it is necessary to make efforts to improve the problems of the structure or system to prevent and eradicate school violence. The method of entering school violence in school life records violates the legal common sense, and at least educational guidance is not inconsistent with the National Human Rights Commission's recommendation to delete or delete the system before graduation, and thus, the Ministry of Education's appeal and inspection policy against A.

Such an appeal shall not be deemed to fall under a specific political activity prohibited by the State Public Officials Act and other individual laws, such as the State Public Officials Act, or an act of directly revealing a specific political party or political power with a clear opposition or support for a specific political party or political force, which may infringe on the public educational official’s political neutrality. Rather, in light of the content and the method of expression of the appeal in this case, the appeal in this case complaining of the reconsideration of the school violence measures taken in the Ministry of Education based on the educational’s own conscience, and thus, it is merely an act of expression within the scope that an educator is ordinarily able by the sound social norms of our society in the area of educational policy, and thus, it cannot be said that such an act goes beyond the original part of the public educational official’s educational policy and is contrary to the public interest and detrimental to the public interest, thereby neglecting his duty of care and duty of care.

Therefore, the publication of the appeal of this case does not constitute a "collective act for purposes other than public service" prohibited by Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act, and it does not constitute a violation of Article 3 (2) of the Regulations on the Service of State Public Officials. Furthermore, this act cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 3 (2) of the

The State Public Officials Act, which prescribes the duty of good faith of senior public officials, cannot be evaluated as violating Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du213, Feb. 27, 2014).

3) If so, the grounds for disciplinary action against this part of the persons to be disciplined are not established. (C) Ultimately, the Ministry of Education’s resolution on disciplinary action against the person to be disciplined was conducted regarding the grounds for disciplinary action for which the Special Disciplinary Committee was not established, and thus, there was a legal and de facto disability that could not be enforced. Even if the Plaintiff did not execute the above disciplinary action, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was clearly negligent in managing and executing the delegated

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the order to perform the duties of this case is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin-chul

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Jong-il