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

A. The plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates D High Schools and C Middle Schools, and the defendant is established with the aim of contributing to improving the welfare of the teachers and staff working at the private school and the school operations organization by rationally managing and operating the affairs related to pension management under the Pension for Private School Teachers and Staff Act (hereinafter "Private School Pension Act").

B. On March 1, 2008, the Plaintiff appointed B as the principal of the D High School on March 1, 2008, and the term of office expires on February 29, 2012, the Plaintiff again appointed as the principal of the D High School on March 1, 2012, and on August 31, 2012, the term of office terminated due to retirement age. 2) On March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff appointed B as the principal of the C Middle School, and on March 2, 2016, appointed B as the principal of the C Middle School on March 1, 2016 pursuant to Article 54(1) of the Private School Act (hereinafter referred to as the “competent agency”). The Plaintiff dismissed B from the office of education in the Gyeongnam-do Office of Education (hereinafter referred to as the “instant school agency”), who was a teacher of the C Middle School from March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2017.”

3) On March 17, 2016, the instant competent agency rejected the said report of appointment with the purport that “the report of appointment shall be returned according to the violation of the restriction on termination of employment and the appointment of the principal for a period exceeding the retirement age.” On March 18, 2016, it rejected the said report by modifying the grounds for rejection to the effect that “the report of appointment of the principal shall be rejected due to the violation of the restriction on termination of employment for the principal.” (C) The Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a report of appointment of the teaching staff to the Defendant on March 1, 2016, stating that “B was appointed as the principal of the C Middle School,” and on March 21, 2016, that the interpretation of the Private School Act constitutes a restriction on termination of employment at the instant competent agency is not inconsistent with the current law.

The plaintiff was appointed.