The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that there are circumstances to consider the details and degree of the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty of prohibition of profit-making and concurrent office, and determined that there was no illegality of deviation or abuse of discretion in a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty of good faith is recognized; and (b)

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the freedom of learning, the legal principle of teacher status, the principle of equity, and the deviation and abuse of the discretionary power of disciplinary action, or by exceeding the bounds of

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the portion arising from the participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jae-in

Justices Min You-sook of the District Court

Justices Lee Jae-hwan