1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court's explanation of this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition or dismissal as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this case is quoted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition or after addition, "Evidence A No. 41" shall be added to the part on which "written evidence" is written at the fifth fifth 3rd of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the following shall be added to "facts" at the fifth 19th 19th :

The portion of the judgment of the first instance, “The fact-finding confirmation,” which is the 5th to the 19th end of the 19th day of the 5th day of the judgment of the first instance, is written by the following: “The plaintiff,” who is an English instructor at the International Institute, is an English instructor at the International Institute, shall take the following measures:

The plaintiff alleged that "the plaintiff was directly or indirectly involved in the operation of the I Teaching Institute" (the plaintiff may not be deemed to operate the I Teaching Institute in light of D, L, and M's legal testimony in the case of "Violation of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons" (Seoul District Court 2019 High Court 24). However, the facts charged in the above criminal case are different from that of "the plaintiff, who is a teacher of C High School established pursuant to Article 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, operated a Private Teaching Institute under the name of N, operated a Private Teaching Institute, and provided extracurricular lessons under the name of N," and the facts charged in the above criminal case are different from that of "the plaintiff actively involved in the operation of the I Teaching Institute" and "the prohibition of "the profit-making business and concurrent office concurrently engaged in the operation of the I Teaching Institute" are different, regardless of whether it can be recognized that the plaintiff operated the I Teaching Institute under the name of N, and therefore the plaintiff's above assertion can not be accepted.

The plaintiff is a branch court of Busan District Court, which was declared after the pleadings of this case were concluded.