beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the assertion emphasized by the plaintiff in this court, such as Paragraph (2) 2, and Paragraph (3) 3. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the
(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this context is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance). 2. 2. Cut, adding, and deleting the content of “in the third-year English school,” the part of “in the third-year English school,” which reads “in the third-year English school.”
3 The part of "C High School" in the 12nd line shall be changed to "C High School".
4. The portion of "School Teachers' Appeals Commission" in the second sentence of "School Teachers' Appeals Commission" shall be added to "On March 9, 2017 and April 18, 2017."
The portion of “the plaintiff was in charge of the 7th 7th 7th 8 lines” is as follows:
Since the plaintiff was appointed as a teacher in 1986 and was put in a school position for about 30 years, it seems that he was well aware that the high level of loyalty and integrity are required due to the characteristics of the duties based on the people's trust. From the 7th bottom of 1986 to the 3th 5 line of "no record is different."
There is no difference between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff who re-grants tuition fees. The nine to six parts of the 9th three to six of the 19th " are as follows."
The No. 5294, Sept. 5, 1995, and Supreme Court Decisions 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 1999; hereinafter “No. 198Du10424, Nov. 26, 1999, etc.”), “The No. 2014, Nov. 26, 1999; hereinafter “The No. 2014, Nov. 26, 1995; and hereinafter “The No. 20100, etc. 300)”
Therefore, the defendant is therefore the defendant.