2. B

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal (1) as to the ground of appeal No. 1

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the above defect was not cured, on the grounds that: (a) there was procedural defect that the Defendant’s president requested the Plaintiffs’ disciplinary committee to make a disciplinary resolution without undergoing the deliberation and resolution of the Defendant’s board of directors prior to the Defendant’s primary removal against the Plaintiffs; (b) the cause of the occurrence of a disciplinary measure among the primary removal made by the Plaintiff B is specific who is subject to the disciplinary measure; (c) what kind of notice was posted at any time; (d) procedural defect was in violation of the duty of written notification of the cause of the disciplinary measure under the Private School Act; and (e) the Plaintiff B was not guaranteed the opportunity to present opinions on the cause of the disciplinary measure. Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules; or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the time of resolution of the board of directors necessary for the disciplinary measure;

(2) Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

With respect to the grounds for disciplinary action during the first removal of Plaintiff A and the second removal of Plaintiff B, among the grounds for disciplinary action and the second removal of Plaintiff B, the Plaintiffs organized or joined the professor Council of this case and the second removal of Plaintiff B, and the overall purport of the action such as the grounds for disciplinary action is as follows: (a) although Defendant and D University, which are educational institutions, should operate in a transparent manner in accordance with the purpose of their establishment, there is no suspicion of corruption; (b) G president operated Defendant and D University in a clear manner, and continued to be pointed out from the Ministry of Education and the Board of Audit and Inspection, etc.; and (c) Defendant and G president, etc. urged Defendant and D University to find the form of educational institution by operating Defendant and D University in a democratic and transparent manner; (d) Plaintiffs’ major contents of suspicion raised by the Plaintiffs are true or true; and (e) Plaintiffs’ operation of G University should not be regarded as false; and (e) there were considerable reasons for the Plaintiffs to believe that the reasons for disciplinary action, such as the aforementioned, etc. were unlawful and transparent.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for justifying defamation, or by omitting judgment, etc.

(3) Examining the record as to the third ground for appeal, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that all grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs were not recognized on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on deviation and abuse of discretionary power.

2. On the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiffs, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim for consolation money on the grounds that each removal disposition against the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to constitute a tort. Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Justices Jo Hee-de