The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a public institution that studies and develops the curriculum of the schools of various levels below high schools and conducts research and evaluation of various kinds of education. The Plaintiff is an employee who entered the Defendant on August 1, 2010 and was in office in B from January 1, 2019.

B. On May 28, 2019, the Defendant demanded the Defendant’s personnel committee to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the victim and three non-regular employees belonging to the C Department found the Plaintiff’s personal laboratory from March 11, 2019 to March 16:30, 17:00, and demanded the Plaintiff to return the printer.” The Plaintiff refused the return of the printer, and caused the victim to feel sexual humiliation and a serious insult, thereby making the victim feel sexual harassment.”

C. On June 18, 2019, the Defendant’s personnel committee decided to reprimand the Plaintiff on the ground that it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s act of sexual harassment as stated in the written resolution on disciplinary action constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 50 of the Personnel Regulations.

On June 26, 2019, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff by reprimand.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disciplinary action”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disciplinary action has grounds for invalidation as follows, thus seeking nullification of the instant disciplinary action.

1) In the instant disciplinary action, the Defendant only allowed the Plaintiff to peruse only the report of audit results prepared by the Defendant, and prevented the Plaintiff from fully inspecting the statements, CCTVs, etc. of the relevant persons, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s right of defense. 2) The Defendant’s sexual harassment deliberation committee determined that the instant disciplinary action constituted sexual harassment before the personnel committee decided to take the instant disciplinary action.

However, some of the members of the sexual harassment deliberation committee are subject to the disciplinary action of this case.