1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss “N” in Articles 7, 10, and 11 of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance as “N”, “A witness of the 8th judgment” as “ witness of the court of first instance,” and “a witness of the 10th judgment” in Article 12 of the 10th judgment as “a witness of the court of first instance, and the mere fact that the Plaintiff submitted a written request, etc. for opening a lecture, etc., is insufficient to reverse this judgment.” The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the conjunctive assertion newly raised by the Plaintiff at the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition under paragraph (2) below to the judgment on the conjunctive assertion newly raised by the Plaintiff at the court

2. The part 1 added to the plaintiff's assertion that the ground for the disposition in this case exists, in light of the fact that the degree of the plaintiff's misconduct is very minor and that it is difficult to view the plaintiff's intentional or gross negligence, etc., the disposition in this case goes beyond the limit of the defendant's right to discretion, and thus, is unlawful. 2) If a disciplinary action is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action in the grounds for disciplinary action, the decision of which disposition should be placed at the discretion of the disciplinary authority. However, if the disciplinary action taken by the person subject to disciplinary authority as the exercise of discretion has considerably lost validity under the social norms and has abused the discretionary power to the person with authority, it can be deemed that the disposition is unlawful, and if the disciplinary action is deemed to be an unlawful disposition going beyond the scope of discretion, it can be deemed that the contents and nature of the disciplinary action, the purpose for which the disciplinary action is to be achieved, and the criteria for a disciplinary action, etc., are clearly unreasonable in light of the specific cases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002.