1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. After being appointed as a public educational official on June 1, 1978, the Plaintiff was promoted to the principal on March 1, 2014, and from March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff served as the principal at E Middle School.

Defendant B participated in the decision of the disciplinary committee of the Plaintiff held on March 20, 2017 as a member of the General Disciplinary Committee of the F Public Educational Officials (hereinafter referred to as the “Disciplinary Committee”), and Defendant C, as an executive secretary of the Disciplinary Committee, participated in the decision of the disciplinary committee of the Plaintiff, which was held on March 20, 2017, and Defendant D was in charge of the duties of the said disciplinary committee

B. The F Office of Education conducted an audit on the misconduct related to the Plaintiff on December 15, 2016, and held the Audit and Inspection Council on December 15, 2016. G as the Chairperson, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P as the members, Q as the auditor and the investigator, R, and S as the investigator. As a result of the review, the Audit and Inspection Committee decided to request a resolution of severe disciplinary action against the Plaintiff and imposition of disciplinary surcharge (three times). 2) The F Office of Education requested the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee on December 27, 2016, the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee, and a resolution of heavy disciplinary action against the Plaintiff and imposition of disciplinary surcharge (three times).

3) On March 20, 2017, the Disciplinary Committee made a resolution on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity) and 63 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant resolution on disciplinary action”) to impose a disciplinary surcharge of KRW 935,100 under Article 78-2 (1) of the State Public Officials Act and Article 78-2 (1) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

(4) On March 31, 2017, the F Superintendent of the Office of Education issued a three-month disciplinary action of suspension from office and imposition of surcharges for disciplinary action of KRW 935,100 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disciplinary action, etc.”) to the Plaintiff on the basis of the foregoing disciplinary action.

C. On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff, in the process of the relevant case, shall conduct an audit and inspection deliberation council on the instant disciplinary action against the Superintendent of the F Superintendent of the Office of Education.