1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the bottom of the second judgment of the court of first instance, the third "2004...." shall be referred to as "2014..."

The "Public Educational Officials Disciplinary Committee" in paragraph (4) of the decision of the court of first instance shall be deleted.

From the end of the 7th sentence of the first instance court to the 8th sentence are as follows.

【 However, in addition to the statement in Eul evidence 4, the instant general disciplinary committee made a decision citing the plaintiffs' motion to challenge H on September 2, 2014. Since H thereafter held meetings on September 4, 2014, meetings held on September 30, 2014, meetings held on October 8, 2014, and meetings held on October 16, 2014, and participated in disciplinary cases on the plaintiffs, the resolution of the instant general disciplinary committee in violation of Article 13(1) of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree (the defendant is deemed to have violated Article 13(1) of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree, which is a provision on the challenge of a member of the disciplinary committee, even though Article 13(2) and (3) of the Public Officials Disciplinary Ordinance, it is unreasonable to determine that the challenged member violated Article 13(1) of the same Decree, which is a provision on exclusion, and thus, the defendant's assertion that the disciplinary action order is effective under Article 13(1) of the above Decree is not acceptable.

(2) On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that, although the challenged decision was present at each of the above meetings of the instant General Disciplinary Committee, the Plaintiff did not participate in the specific deliberation for the resolution against the Plaintiffs, the instant general Disciplinary Committee’s resolution procedure was not erroneous. However, according to the record of the minutes of each of the above meetings, H as a chairperson of the disciplinary committee’s disciplinary committee’s evidence No. 4 (the record of the minutes of each of the above meetings at each date), the instant general Disciplinary Committee’s meeting was held on September 4, 2014 and September 30, 2014