1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff, the director of C University Music University, operated by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), was in violation of the rules of implementation on new employment of part-time instructors of the music university, and thus, it constitutes grounds for disciplinary action, on the ground that the Plaintiff, who was the director of C University Music University, operated by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), was aware that it was against the rules of implementation on new employment of part-time instructors of the music university, thereby allowing them to be employed as part-time instructors, and furthermore, proposing them to directly contact part-time lecturers to be employed as part-time lecturers and obtaining their consent,

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the fairness of employment and the final person in charge of employing part-time instructors, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Article 61(1)3 of the Private School Act provides that one of the grounds for disciplinary action against a private school teacher when a private school teacher’s act of impairing his/her dignity regardless of whether his/her duties are inside or outside of office is one of the grounds for disciplinary action against a private school teacher. Here, dignity refers to a person who does not have a color because he/she performs his/her duties as an educator for the public. Whether a certain act constitutes injury to dignity should be determined

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Du16613 delivered on June 9, 2000). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasons, the following facts are revealed.

(1) On June 18, 2009, the Music College published a notice of recruitment of faculty members at the Music College on the basis of the employment of full-time faculty members on June 18, 2009, and followed the procedure. However, as a matter of fairness in the recruitment process by the Music College’s Council, etc., the progress of the above procedure was suspended on August 20, 2009.

b) the Commission;