The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on a new argument made by the plaintiff in this court, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text

2. Additional determination by this Court

A. On January 13, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff was unlawful because it did not undergo a procedure for hearing opinions under Article 65(1) of the Private School Act, even though the Plaintiff submitted a written statement by content-certified mail, wherein the chairman of the teachers’ disciplinary committee of the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Defendant Intervenor”) was the recipient.

According to Article 65 (1) of the Private School Act, the teachers' disciplinary committee shall hear the statements of the person himself/herself before making a decision on disciplinary action, except in cases where summons is not complied with at least twice in writing.

According to the minutes of the disciplinary action (BB 2-2 and 3) and the instruction for attendance (BB 4-1 to 3), it is recognized that the chairperson of the Intervenor’s Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee was not present even if he/she notified the Plaintiff by content-proof mail that the Plaintiff would attend the school around January 8, 2014 and January 21, 2014, respectively, with respect to the teachers’ disciplinary committee held three times on January 20, 2014 and January 28, 2014 and February 4, 2014.

Thus, there is no procedural violation in the trial of the defendant intervenor's intervenor's failure to state his opinion.

(On the other hand, according to B-B-2, the first teachers' disciplinary committee held on January 20, 2014 recognized that the executive secretary has reported the written statement submitted by the plaintiff by content-certified mail to the chairperson, etc., so it does not seem that the plaintiff's opinion was not examined in the disciplinary procedure.

The plaintiff performed an operation.