The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the "Regulation on Disciplinary Action against Teachers and Employees" of Defendant Corporation (hereinafter "the disciplinary provision of this case") is comprised of not less than five but not more than seven members (including one chairperson) (Article 4(2)1). A person subject to disciplinary action may, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a member of the disciplinary committee is likely to make an unfair decision, explain the fact in writing and apply for challenge (Article 13(1)). In this case, a person who has received a challenge application is unable to participate in the resolution (Article 13(2)); on the other hand, at least 2/3 of the incumbent members are present and with the consent of a majority of members present, a person subject to disciplinary action shall be present and with the consent of a majority of members present

(Article 14, Section 2).

However, since the application for challenge is originally against an individual disciplinary committee member and the resolution on the application for challenge is also made individually, even if there are several applications for challenge against a disciplinary committee member, the disciplinary committee member subject to the application cannot participate only in the resolution for himself/herself, and may participate in the resolution for other persons, but if the reason for challenge arises from a common reason, not only in the resolution for himself/herself, but also in the resolution for other persons

However, in full view of the above contents and purport of the disciplinary provision of this case, in cases where a person subject to disciplinary action cannot form a disciplinary committee by simultaneously applying for a challenge against all or most of the disciplinary members, or where the decision of the disciplinary committee itself is impossible, etc., the application itself constitutes abuse of the right to request a challenge, and thus, such application is inappropriate.