1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,702,810 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 29, 2018 to January 16, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From March 1, 1999, the Plaintiff and the Defendant-related Plaintiff served as a teacher in C High School operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant school”).

B. On October 29, 2010, the Plaintiff’s first information (i.e., the head of the administrative office D of the instant school obtained 54.2 million won from the Seoul Northern District Court (2010dan2467) in response to the solicitation that the party would have been ordered to take part in the construction of the school by free contract (the crime of occupational embezzlement) and embezzled 27 million won of the corporate fund under the pretext of the construction of the facilities (the crime of occupational embezzlement). The Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for 10 months and was sentenced to a suspended sentence for 2 years. On July 22, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to the same sentence at the appellate court (the same court), and on November 10, 2011, the final appeal was affirmed by the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 201Do10723).

However, on July 22, 2011, D only received the reduction of salary 3 months and 15 months after the expiration of the disciplinary action from the Defendant due to the misconduct related to the above criminal case.

around April 2012, the Plaintiff reported the pertinent school personnel of this case who continue to work as the school personnel of this case, even though D had received the aforementioned judgment.

On September 2012, the Office of Education of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City notified the Defendant that D constitutes grounds for ipso facto retirement and requested the Defendant to report the result of the implementation of the measure. On June 2013, 2013, the Office of Education of the Republic of Korea revoked the Defendant’s approval of taking office against F of the president.

Applicant at the time, G, D, etc., the principal of the school of this case, opened information-related materials to the public and opened it to the public, and gave pressure to the teachers to find the informant by receiving a written consent from all the teachers.

In addition, G around March 2013, it disclosed that the Plaintiff is an informant with the title of “the direction of the principal of the school” as the main part of the intra-school business.

C. The plaintiff 2nd.