1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a teacher of a G High School established and operated by the educational foundation F, and the Defendants are the principal of Defendant B, the assistant principal of Defendant C, and Defendant D are the principal of the school.

B. 1. Breach of duty of good faith (Embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds) (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”) (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”), enhancement of the role of a teacher in charge of economic and emotional care, thereby using 1.80,000 won out of the 700,000 won of the subsidy for “business of high school” in order to improve the student’s adaptation ability, promote relationship with the teacher in charge, etc., for personal purposes, and then depositing 1.8,00 won into the school. 2. Violation of duty to obey and maintain the dignity (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”).

A. On September 1, 2016, around 8:30 on September 1, 2016, the assistant principal C observed the direction of the Plaintiff to the school affairs administration support officer, pointed out the importance of the transport and opening of the test site, and instructed the Plaintiff to proceed the test, and obstructed the Plaintiff’s highness and business.

Defendant B, the principal of the school, demanded the party involved (the assistant principal and the principal of the school department) and the Plaintiff to submit a statement of reasons several times, but the Plaintiff refused to do so. School Foundation F was subject to a disciplinary measure for one month of salary reduction on April 20, 2017 for the following reasons.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). C.

On October 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disciplinary action with the Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap6839, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 27, 2018 on the ground that “it is difficult to deem that the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff were recognized and the instant disciplinary action significantly lacks validity by social norms, and thus, it is illegal to deviate from and abuse of discretion.” The Plaintiff appealed the said judgment and the appeal court (Seoul High Court 2018Nu45130) is continuing.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 11, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The cause of the action.