1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is based on the second E of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment, except for a change of Paragraph (1) (Judgment as to the assertion of deviation or abuse of discretionary power, No. 22-2, No. 8), No. 26-2, 26-2, 300, 420-2, 420-2, 20

[The plaintiff argues that the act of participating in the instant case’s annual injunction does not constitute “an act contrary to the public interest and neglecting the duty of loyalty,” and therefore, there is no ground for disposition. However, in light of the relevant legal principles, the plaintiff’s act of actively participating in the instant case’s annual injunction is deemed as an act contrary to the public interest, which is a public official’s act going beyond the part of the Plaintiff as a teacher, thereby undermining the public interest or undermining the essence of public duties, and thus, it constitutes an act of neglecting the duty of loyalty. Accordingly, the above assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted).2.

E. Whether a disciplinary measure should be taken when a disciplinary measure is taken against a disciplinary person who is a public official of the relevant legal principles as to the assertion of abuse of discretionary power is placed at the discretion of the person having authority over disciplinary measures. However, the disciplinary measure taken by the person having authority over disciplinary measures as the exercise of discretionary power is illegal only when it is deemed that the disciplinary measure significantly lacks validity under the social norms and is abused by the person having authority over disciplinary measures.

If a disciplinary action against a public official has considerably lost validity by social norms, it is intended to achieve the content and nature of the misconduct caused by the disciplinary action and the disciplinary action according to the specific cases.