1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a school foundation that operates the C Middle School (hereinafter referred to as the “instant school”), and the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a Korean language teacher from March 1, 200 to a junior junior college attached to the D University College College of Education on March 1, 200, and was assigned to the instant school on March 1, 200, and served as a Korean language teacher.

B. On May 14, 2013, the head of Cmiddle School requested a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff to the Intervenor, following a deliberation by the Personnel Committee, and the Intervenor requested a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on May 30, 2013, following a resolution by the board of directors for the organization of Cmiddle School Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter “Disciplinary Committee”) and for a request for a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.

on June 14, 2013, the Disciplinary Committee shall:

A. Above 10

E. Based on the grounds for disciplinary action such as the foregoing paragraph (1) (hereinafter “instant grounds for disciplinary action”), the Plaintiff decided to dismiss the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 61(1)1 through 3 of the Private School Act.

On July 3, 2013, the Intervenor removed the Plaintiff from office on July 4, 2013 (hereinafter “instant removal”).

[Grounds for Disciplinary Action]

A. On March 22, 2012, the day when there was an open class of attendance for parents participating in the former teachers and an individual interview for parents-to-be held on the part of the former teachers on March 22, 2012, such as the abandonment of duties, violation of good faith, violation of duty to obey, violation of duty to obey, violation of duty to leave a workplace, violation of duty to maintain dignity, and violation of duty to maintain dignity (1). However, the Plaintiff appeared to attend a meeting at around 8:0 a.m. on the part of the former teachers, but did not comply with the direction of the principal on March 23, 2012 on the part of the assistant principal, and lost the difficulty in work as a fence and the credibility of the school. (2) On March 23, 2012, the Plaintiff unilaterally demanded childcare leave on the part of the former teachers without normal attendance on March 26, 2012.

3. Until six days of absence from work without permission by the end of 29. The absence from work brings about school loss and gap in office, and work place without permission.