beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Details of decision on the petition examination;
A. After being appointed as a teacher on March 1, 1990, the Plaintiff’s career served in C High School under the School Foundation B (hereinafter “B”) from November 1, 2007, and served as an assistant principal of the above school from March 1, 2009.
B. (1) On September 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) around September 2012, in order to select teachers for the pertinent subjects according to Chigh School Education, Sports, and Music Teachers’ Increase Plan; (b) “competitive examination for selecting candidates for appointment of secondary and secondary school teachers” (hereinafter “instant new teachers”).
(2) The new teachers recruitment procedure of this case was published on the website of the Office of Education of Gyeongbuk-do in receipt of the application form during the receipt period and conducted the secondary examination (including preparation of learning guidance, class attendance, interview) only for those who do not fall within the first written examination, and the final selection of those subject to the examination was made by the B board of directors in consideration of the results of the examination.
3) Only one person E, who worked as a fixed-term music teacher in the previous C High School for about two years, has received the application form in the music part of the music teacher part. The Plaintiff selected the music teacher D as the Plaintiff, C High School Department FF, G High School principal H, and I High School. (C) The Plaintiff requested the question questions to the members preparing the first written examination in the recruitment process of the new teacher in this case, and received the examination paper and answer paper by mail (in particular, received through a third party working at the music middle school of the racing with a particular music problem), and given the first written answer paper to the candidate who is appointed as a music subject, the Plaintiff gave a mark to the applicant without being exposed to the applicant’s personal information.