1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision;

A. The Intervenor joining the Intervenor’s disciplinary action against the Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was imposed a disciplinary action for two months of salary reduction in accordance with Article 61 of the Private School Act, Article 54(1)2 and 3 of the Intervenor’s Articles of Incorporation, and Article 2 of the Intervenor’s Regulation on Disciplinary Action against Teachers and Employees on the ground that the Plaintiff was in office as the principal of C University Music University, and did not perform his/her duty as follows, and breached his/her duty to maintain the dignity of teachers:

① In 2009, in accordance with Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule for the Employment of Part-time Instructors at the Music University, the entire faculty’s conference to proceed with the recruitment process only for those who have passed the examination of documents pursuant to Article 2 of the Regulations on the Employment of Instructors at the Music University. On August 7, 2009, the Plaintiff was aware that he/she would employ an instructor from among applicants by sending a notice to the applicants. However, he/she failed to perform his/her duties as the head of the music university, such as undermining the fairness of the recruitment process by employing those who

(hereinafter “Cause 1”). (2) Although the director of the music university and the examiner have maintained confidentiality on the employment-related matters, D submitted a witness statement to the court in the provisional disposition case filed against the intervenor, and leaked internal secrets related to the appointment of the intervenor, thereby violating the obligation to maintain the dignity of the teachers.

(hereinafter referred to as "grounds for second disciplinary action"). (b)

When the Plaintiff filed a petition against the Defendant’s decision on disciplinary action, the Defendant recognized all grounds for disciplinary action on January 16, 2012. However, in the case of the second ground for disciplinary action, the disciplinary disposition was reduced to one month for the reason that the Plaintiff was to submit a witness’s statement in order to clarify the substantive truth, and that the motive is to be taken into account.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision”). [No dispute exists concerning the basis for recognition.]