1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On September 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was appointed as the principal of middle school (the appointment period from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2013) and served as the principal of B High School located in Gyeonggi-do Si from September 1, 2009 to February 29, 2012, and as the principal of C High School located in Pyeongtaek-si in Gyeonggi-do from March 1, 2012 to August 31, 2013.

On June 2013, the plaintiff at the expiration of the term of appointment for the principal of a school submitted a letter of wishing to appoint the principal of a school and related documents to the Office of Education under the jurisdiction of the defendant, and on August 7, 2013, the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education submitted to the defendant a letter of proposal for appointment for the appointment of the principal including the plaintiff.

The Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure as of December 31, 2011 on August 23, 2011, appointed the president not to recommend the appointment of the principal of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “decision on refusal of recommendation for appointment”), and the Plaintiff as teachers pursuant to Article 29-2(5) of the Public Educational Officials Act.

On September 1, 2013, the President issued a disposition to appoint the principal of a nationwide elementary, middle and high school, and the Plaintiff was not included in the appointment.

On September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff sought revocation of a decision to refuse the recommendation for appointment of the instant case against the Defendant to the Teachers’ Appeal Committee, but the Teachers’ Appeal Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on December 24, 2013 on the ground that the decision to refuse the recommendation for appointment of the instant case does not constitute “disposition”.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

【In the absence of dispute, the parties to the determination as to Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the main purpose of this safety defense, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant has a de facto right to decide on the refusal of the plaintiff's participation in the principal of the school, which appears in the form of refusal of the recommendation for appointment, constitutes "disposition" subject to administrative litigation, and against this, the defendant's decision on the refusal of appointment for appointment in this case.