According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized that the plaintiff was the principal of a national school from September 1, 1976 to (school name omitted) and paid 15,000 won out of the price for the sale of 100,000 won for the Do school correction and the 15,000,000 won for the sales of the bank, and the remaining amount of 85,000 won for the 85,000 won for the dong school education account, not for the majority of the answers to the dong school education, and the 40,000 won for the sales of the 297 out of the Do school's dong school's dong school's Do school's Do school's Do school's Do school's Y and Do school's Do school's Do Y and Do Y. The above act constitutes a ground for disciplinary action against the plaintiff, and it cannot be viewed as an unlawful or unfair scope of discretion.

However, as seen in the instant case, it is difficult to view that it is an unlawful act deviating from social norms, such as impairing the accounting order, by taking advantage of the proceeds from selling the heat produced from the school, or the announcement of the waste in the front room, if it was not partly raised for the benefit of the school, as seen in the instant case, by taking advantage of the proceeds from selling the heat produced from the school, or the announcement of the waste in the front room, it is difficult to view that it is an unlawful act going beyond the social norms, such as impairing the accounting order, by taking advantage of the public announcement of the lower court’s decision. However, even if examining the record in detail, there is no evidence to see that large-scale trees or bank trees were in mind for the benefit of the school.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff did not pay part of the proceeds from the large-scale trees or bank trees such as the time of original adjudication, it cannot be said that the defendant disturbed the accounting order. Thus, the defendant did not pay part of the proceeds from the bank to the special account for educational expenses as above. Thus, the defendant's disciplinary action of this case, which is in the first month of salary reduction, in which the plaintiff did not pay part of the proceeds from the large-scale trees or bank funds to the special account for educational expenses, should be deemed to be an illegal disposition due to the abuse of the right to discipline, even though the disciplinary action of this case, which is in the first month of salary reduction, should be deemed to be a ground for disciplinary action (the defendant's act of taking the proceeds from the violation of the right to discipline in the public notice that has been abandoned adjacent to his office, into the special account for educational expenses, should not be deemed to be a abuse of

The lower court, solely on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, deemed that the Defendant’s above disposition was correct, cannot be exempted from criticism because it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding disciplinary reasons, unless the lower court failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to whether large-scale trees or bank trees at the time of the original adjudication and whether they were in serious mind for the school’s profits or not, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

It is reasonable to point out these points.

Therefore, this appeal is with merit and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)