2. On July 22, 2015, the Defendant’s Intervenor A and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”).

2. Whether each decision of this case was unlawful

A. The plaintiffs asserted that since the cancellation disposition of approval of taking office of this case cannot be deemed to lose their status as principal and teacher due to the following reasons, the unfavorable disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful, and accordingly, the decision of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful.

1) In light of the purport of the Constitution and the Private School Act that strongly guarantees the status of a teacher of a private school related to the part on the loss of the status of the principal, Article 57 of the Private School Act shall be deemed to be listed only in the reason for the ipso facto retirement of the teacher. However, in light of the fact that the Private School Act does not stipulate the reason for the restriction on appointment differently from the Public Educational Officials Act, the cancellation of the approval for taking office against the plaintiffs is merely a reason for the restriction on the appointment of the principal as provided by Article 54-3 (1) 1 of the Private School Act, not a reason for the ipso facto retirement, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs are retired ipso facto from the position of the principal due to the cancellation of the approval for taking office of the principal in this case. On the contrary, interpreting the status as a ipso facto loss even after the appointment of the principal occurred after the appointment of the principal cannot be allowed as an interpretation beyond the ordinary meaning of the provisions of the Private School Act, and it is obviously contrary to the Constitution