1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates D Middle Schools and E High Schools.

B. On March 1, 1988, the Intervenor B was a teacher of E High School (Fhigh school before changing school name) and the Intervenor C was appointed respectively as a teacher of D Middle School on March 16, 1990, and on May 8, 2017, the Intervenor supported the open principal recruitment system and was appointed as the principal of each of the above schools on May 15, 2017.

C. On March 26, 2018, the Intervenor filed a petition review with the Defendant on March 26, 2018, stating that “The Plaintiff’s dismissal from office against the Intervenor is invalid during the period from February 23, 2018 to March 26, 2018.” On April 19, 2018, the Intervenor submitted a written response to the purport that “the Intervenor was not subject to the disposition for the dismissal from office.” The Intervenor selected the claim seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the disposition for the dismissal from office on June 1, 2018.

On June 20, 2018, the defendant decided on June 20, 2018 that there is no parliamentary dismissal disposition against the intervenor.

(hereinafter referred to as "the decision of this case") . [Grounds for recognition] . [The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 and Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The defendant should have rejected the intervenor's request for review of the appeal for the following reasons, but the decision of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

1) The former Special Act on the Improvement of Status of Teachers and the Protection of Educational Activities (amended by Act No. 1631, Apr. 23, 2019; hereinafter “former Act on the Status of Teachers”).

(1) Article 9(1) of the Regulations on Civil Petitions against Teachers is a provision premised on the existence of disposition, and Article 16(2)4 of the Regulations on Civil Petitions against Teachers is null and void as it is without delegation of higher statutes. Thus, the Intervenor’s claim for review of a petition seeking confirmation of absence of disposition is unlawful. (2) The Intervenor’s claim