1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff has served as an assistant principal from March 1, 2012 to B High School, and as an assistant principal from September 1, 2013 to C High School.

On July 27, 2012, the Plaintiff received the issue to be drawn through an open screening examination conducted by the education specialist in the 24th educational service (hereinafter “instant examination issue”) from D who works for the Cheongnam-do Office of Education by telephone, and was asked to inform E who applied for the said examination of the issue.

The plaintiff knew that the examination issue of this case is an issue to be set for the above examination, and known it to E on the same day (the day immediately before the interview examination).

The plaintiff's act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) of the State Public Officials Act, since he/she violates Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity) and 63 (Duty of Confidentiality) of the State Public Officials Act.

B. On July 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act, on the grounds that there were grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff for two months of suspension from office.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On August 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers, but was dismissed on November 18, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s non-existence of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 disposition ground that “If E does not pass this time, there are many complaints to the Superintendent of the Office of Education and to raise an issue to the test itself,” and that E was subject to a disposition by the Prosecutor’s Office on the grounds that “E was unaware of the problem that the instant test problem was leaked in advance,” with respect to the suspected charge of obstruction of the performance of deceptive scheme, the Plaintiff ought to be deemed to have informed E without entirely recognizing that the instant test problem was leaked at the time.

Therefore, the instant disposition is a ground for disposition.