Sungnam-si

Law Firm General Law Office (Law Firm LLC, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Shin, Kim Shin, Lee, Lee In-bok

Seoul

Representative M, the Chairperson

The litigation performer red, depth, this part;

Seoul

Representative Chairman:

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Lee, Lee, Lee

Defendant and Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Law Firm

[Defendant-Appellee]

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

Considering the contents and nature of the Plaintiff’s act of misconduct, the circumstances leading to the act of misconduct, the degree of infringement of the Plaintiff’s right to education, the Plaintiff’s work experience, and the situation, etc. as indicated in the records and judgment of the court below, the disposition of this case which decided to dismiss a heavy disciplinary measure which is the result of removing the Plaintiff’s status as an educator and depriving of his status as an educator is justifiable, and the disposition of this case which caused the Plaintiff’s disadvantage going beyond and abused the scope of discretion given to the person with authority to take disciplinary action, contrary to the degree of the Plaintiff’s act of misconduct and the purpose of the disciplinary action. There is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles on the deviation and abuse of the discretionary authority, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Jeju High Court Justice Kim Yong-dam

Justices Park Jong-hwan

Justices Kim Gi-hwan