1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the petition review and decision;

A. On September 1, 2007, the Plaintiff was appointed as a commercial teacher of Chigh School, to which the Intervenor belongs, and on September 1, 2013, the subject in charge was changed to the Korean language teacher.

B. On December 14, 2016, an intervenor requested a disciplinary committee to decide on a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.

(A) Evidence No. 2, A No. 11, B, and B No. 1, and the Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on December 29, 2016. On January 10, 2017, the Intervenor revised some expressions and omitted unnecessary parts in order to help the Plaintiff understand the grounds for disciplinary action specified in the following table. On the other hand, the Intervenor removed the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant removal”).

(D) As seen below, the Defendant deemed that part of the following grounds for disciplinary action does not constitute the grounds for disciplinary action. The Defendant emphasizes underline that the part of the grounds for disciplinary action does not constitute the grounds for disciplinary action; hereinafter the Defendant emphasizes that the part of the grounds for disciplinary action, which the Defendant deemed not to constitute the grounds for disciplinary action; hereinafter, in specifying the individual grounds for disciplinary action, the Defendant shall use the entry of the “the grounds for disciplinary action” as stated in the following subparagraphs (Evidence 3) (Evidence 3). The student sexual manipulation (Disciplinary Reason I)

1. Continuous and intentional written examination questions and the prior outflow of emotional answers (Disciplinary Reason I-1);

A. In February 2016, the Plaintiff published all the questions of literature descriptive and debate-type questions (Disciplinary Reason I-1-) and regular answers (Disciplinary Reason I-1-) in the order of number in the 1st half of the second year, the Plaintiff published the first written evaluation ( May 2016), the second written evaluation ( July 2016) and the first written evaluation ( September 2016), and the second written evaluation ( September 2016), and the second written evaluation ( September 2016) in the 1st half of the second year, and notified students of the problems and answers only to the students.

B. The issue of the first half and third half of year 2016 and the Korean language I, the Korean language II-type and debate-type questions, and the Plaintiff’s answer leakage (Disciplinary Reason I-1-B) are the first written evaluation of the first half of year 1 ( May 2016) and the second written evaluation ( July 2016).