1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall include the costs resulting from the participation in the appeal.

The reasons why the court should explain this case in this case are as follows: (a) the second 16th 16th mar "124.74" of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed to "127.74"; and (b) the intervenor's party argument is added to the judgment of the court of first marries as described in paragraph (2).

(A) The grounds alleged by the Intervenor in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance except for the allegations in paragraph (2) below, and the facts established and determined by the first instance court in light of the evidence submitted in the first instance court as a whole, even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court is deemed legitimate. Therefore, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Intervenor’s assertion that it was necessary for the Intervenor to adjust the duration of the class so that students requesting the change of the duration of the class can hear the course even though the Intervenor completed the preparation for the class. It is sufficient that the Intervenor as the Intervenor does not have to obtain the approval of the principal in making the change of the duration of the class and to submit an ex post facto reinforcement plan or reinforcement report. The Intervenor did not have the authority to approve the teaching plan submitted by the teachers to the principal, on the grounds that the instant university’s teachers’ service regulations and school regulations have not violated the teachers’ service regulations and school regulations of the instant university.

Judgment

Article 8(1) of the Regulations on the Service of University Teachers provides that “A teacher shall submit to the principal of the school via the principal of the school under his/her control, within a period specified separately by the principal of the school under his/her control,” and Article 8(2) provides that “A teacher shall be subject to disease or other unavoidable reasons,” in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., Gap evidence 24, Gap evidence 26, Gap evidence 27, and Gap evidence 28.”