Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined as follows: (a) there is procedural defect in the Defendant’s ground of appeal requesting the Defendant’s disciplinary committee’s disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiffs without undergoing deliberation and resolution by the Defendant’s board of directors prior to the Defendant’s first removal from office; (b) whether the cause of disciplinary action caused by the Plaintiff B’s primary removal from office is specific who is, at any time, posted; and (c) the person who was suspended from activities or who was forced to withdraw from office is not clearly specified; and (d) there is procedural defect in violation of the duty to notify the cause of disciplinary action under the Private School Act; and (e) the Plaintiff B was not substantially guaranteed the opportunity to present opinions on the cause of disciplinary action.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In doing so, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the time of resolution by the board of directors necessary for a resolution on disciplinary action, the duty of notice of

(2) 상고이유 제2점에 관하여 원심은, 원고 A에게 한 1차 파면처분 중 ㉯ 징계사유와 2차 파면처분 중 ㉮ 내지 ㉲ 징계사유, 원고 B에게 한 1차 파면처분 중 ㉲, ㉳, ㉶, ㉷ 징계사유와 2차 파면처분 중 ㉮ 내지 ㉳ 징계사유에 관하여, 원고들이 이 사건 교수협의회를 구성하거나 이에 가입하여 이 부분 징계사유와 같은 행위를 한 전체적인 취지는, 교육기관인 피고와 D대학교 등이 그 설립목적에...