The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the amount of consolation money, the defendant corporation's removal of the plaintiff from office based on the facts of the judgment of the court below was erroneous in violation of the law that deviates from the inherent limits of the choice required by social norms as to the type of disciplinary action and determination thereof as stipulated in Article 61 of the Private School Act. This constitutes a tort as an abuse of disciplinary right, and the so-called "an abuse of disciplinary right" which prevents the plaintiff from working at work, and treats the plaintiff differently without paying salary as a violation of the plaintiff's personality right. Furthermore, since the plaintiff's mental suffering was recognized in accordance with the rule of experience, the defendant has a duty to take this as a matter of money or consolation. Further, the defendant has a duty to dismiss the plaintiff of the defendant corporation as a disciplinary action against the plaintiff, the process of the judgment that the plaintiff raised a nullity of the removal disposition as a woman of 1926, and the plaintiff's action caused by the removal of the plaintiff as a woman in 1926, and the circumstances revealed in oral arguments are inconsistent with the records.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)