2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Defendant is a juristic person established for the purpose of running lifelong educational establishments, which is a lifelong educational establishment with academic attainments under the Lifelong Education Act (hereinafter “instant school”). The Plaintiffs were enrolled in the instant school at the time of 2016.

B. Around March 2015, the Defendant’s director and the president of H, who were the instant school principals, told I, an assistant principal of the instant school, to the effect that “A lending KRW 100 million is due to the shortage of money to reduce the benefits of the instant school teachers,” around September 2015.”

C. When I refused the foregoing demand, H criticizes I several times at the meetings of teachers and staff from October 2015 to November 1, 201, or took charge of Chinese language teachers’ license, and I took charge of Chinese language teachers’ license, and there was conflict between I and I. D.

On January 5, 2016, some of the students of the instant school filed a civil petition with the Office of Education of Daejeon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “ Daejeon Office of Education”), and according to the civil petition filing period, the Daejeon Office of Education conducted an audit of the Defendant and the instant school. On February 2, 2016, the Defendant’s seven directors, including J, including J, prepared an audit report on the audit results that the warning disposition is reasonable as indicated “inappropriate management of the school and the corporation, negligence in the execution of the foundation expense, improper operation of the school expense budget, etc.” as the indicated matters, and on March 3, 2016, the Defendant and the instant school of this case recommended the school normalization plan of the school.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant corrective recommendation”). E.

On March 18, 2016, the Daejeon District Office of Education L. the principal of the instant school to the Defendant.