1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 1989, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was newly appointed as a junior middle school teacher who belongs to the Plaintiff, and was appointed as an assistant principal of the D High School that belongs to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2006 without setting the term of office.

B. The Plaintiff’s articles of association provides that “the teachers other than the head of a school shall be appointed or dismissed by the chief director upon the recommendation of the principal of the school” (Article 39(3)).

On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff revised the articles of incorporation and newly established the assistant principal term system by adding the contents of the amended articles of incorporation (hereinafter referred to as "the amended articles of incorporation") to “the term of office of a single and assistant principal shall be two years, but may be renewed consecutively.”

C. On January 26, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a notice of exemption from position and issuance of personnel (hereinafter “instant notice”) to the intervenors, stating that “The term of office of the assistant principal has expired on February 28, 2017, following the resolution of the personnel management advisory committee in the school and the Plaintiff’s board of directors in accordance with the amended articles of incorporation, and ordered the issuance as a teacher of the D High School on March 1, 2017.”

On May 24, 2017, the Intervenor filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant notification, and the Defendant rendered a decision on May 24, 2017 (hereinafter “instant decision”) that “The Intervenor newly established an assistant principal and fixed-term system after the Intervenor’s appointment as an ordinary teacher without the Intervenor’s consent and issued an intervenor as a ordinary teacher without the Intervenor’s consent constitutes an unfavorable measure against his status-based thought, and thus, constitutes a violation of Article 56(1) of the Private School Act and Article 6 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Status of Teachers and the Protection of Educational Activities (hereinafter “Special Act on the Status of Teachers”).” (hereinafter “instant decision”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. This.