1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an educational foundation that operates Busan High School (hereinafter “C High School”), and the Plaintiff served as a Korean language teacher from April 1, 1990 to C High School.

B. On June 12, 2017, the C High School Teachers’ Personnel Committee deliberated on the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground of the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty to maintain dignity as a teacher (hereinafter “first ground for disciplinary action”), the violation of the duty to prohibit profit-making and concurrent office (hereinafter “second ground for disciplinary action”), and the principal of C High School requested the Defendant to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on June 14, 2017.

C. On June 15, 2017, the Defendant’s board of directors resolved a request for removal from position and disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was released from position on the same day.

On July 14, 2017, the Defendant requested the Defendant’s teachers’ disciplinary committee to make a disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s teachers’ disciplinary committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on August 1, 2017, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the removal on August 22, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant removal”). (e) The removal from office of this case

On September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal requesting the revocation of the instant removal disposition with the Teachers’ Appeal Committee. However, on November 1, 2017, the Teachers’ Appeal Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff are recognized and the amount of the decision is appropriate.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The decision of the Defendant’s Appeal Committee for Teachers is binding (Article 10(2) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status), and the parties to the case may bring an action as prescribed by the Administrative Litigation Act within 90 days against the decision of the Appeal Committee for Teachers. Thus, the Plaintiff is finally dismissed.