1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Basic Facts

The defendant is an educational foundation operating the upper area school, and the plaintiff was employed as the professor at the upper area college B and the upper area university from March 1, 1996.

On December 15, 2014, following the resolution of the teachers' disciplinary committee, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff as grounds for disciplinary action, the Plaintiff violated Article 55 of the Private School Act and Article 23 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Standing Colleges (hereinafter referred to as the "Disciplinary Reason 1"), which prohibits the Plaintiff from holding office as a director, representative director, and internal director of a corporation from September 14, 2007 to May 31, 2013.

(2) On December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Appeal Commission for the revocation of the instant removal on December 22, 2014. Although the illegality of the instant removal procedure is not recognized on March 11, 2015, the Appeal Commission for Teachers decided that the instant removal suspension disposition should be deemed as grounds for disciplinary action on the ground that only the grounds for disciplinary action 2 was recognized as the basis of objective facts in relation to the grounds for disciplinary action, and the grounds for disciplinary action 1 as the grounds for disciplinary action cannot be deemed as false even if some exaggerated expressions are based on objective facts, and thus, it is unlawful in light of the excessive disciplinary action, making a decision changing the instant removal suspension disposition into one month

(hereinafter “instant decision”). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Appeal Committee for Teachers seeking revocation of the instant decision on the ground that “the procedure for the instant disposition of removal has serious defects and the disciplinary action for one month of suspension is excessive only due to the grounds for the second disciplinary action (Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap65377),” and the Seoul Administrative Court on October 15, 2015 (1) concurrently held office as the representative director of the Company C, etc., and gain economic benefits or gain economic benefits while holding office as the representative director of the Company C.