1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 2, 2016, the Plaintiff operated a kindergarten C. On September 2, 2016, the Plaintiff reported that the Intervenor joining the Party (hereinafter referred to as “participating”) was appointed as the director of the kindergarten C. On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as “ Intervenor”). On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff reported the Plaintiff

B. On September 7, 2016, the Intervenor did not work verbally through a Vice-President, and the Intervenor did not work. On October 18, 2016, the Plaintiff reported the dismissal of the Intervenor to the Gyeonggi-do District Office of Education, accompanied by evidentiary documents on the Intervenor’s unauthorized absence from office.

C. On December 16, 2016, the Intervenor filed a petition review with the Defendant. On February 8, 2017, the Defendant revoked the ex officio dismissal disposition, deeming that the Plaintiff’s ex officio dismissal disposition on October 18, 2016, which was made by the Intervenor, was procedural defect as follows, and the ex officio dismissal disposition was revoked.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”) Article 75 of the State Public Officials Act, which shall be deemed to apply mutatis mutandis to a private school teacher on January 1, 200, stipulates that the disposition-taking authority shall issue an explanatory note stating the grounds for the disposition to the person subject to disposition. The purport of the disposition is to ensure that the person subject to disposition is aware of the circumstances leading to the disposition, thereby guaranteeing the opportunity to prepare for defense and appeal against it, and guaranteeing the legality of the disposition by

(See Seoul High Court Decision 89Na239 delivered on October 13, 1989). However, the plaintiff does not issue a written disposition stating the grounds for ex officio dismissal to the intervenor and reported the dismissal to the competent authorities only, and it is recognized that there is a procedural defect that infringes on the intervenor's right to defense.

2. In addition, Article 58 of the Private School Act, which the Plaintiff was on the ground of ex officio dismissal of an intervenor, provides that when a teacher of a private school is extremely poor in work performance, a person who is entitled to appoint and dismiss the teacher concerned may dismiss the intervenor, and the consent of the teachers’ disciplinary committee is