1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant establishes and operates D High Schools and E High Schools established under the Private School Act for the purpose of providing secondary education and basic specialized education.

Plaintiff

A is the principal of the D High School, and Plaintiff B is the principal of the E High School, and the Plaintiffs were the directors of the school juristic person F (hereinafter “F”) from December 2008 to June 2013.

B. On June 27, 2013, the Minister of Education issued a cancellation disposition of approval of taking office against 12 executives of F including the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant cancellation disposition”).

C. On September 16, 2014, the Superintendent of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Office of Education, upon revocation of the approval of the instant case, notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff was deprived of the principal’s position subject to the restriction on the appointment of the principal pursuant to Articles 22 and 54-3 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 13938, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter referred to as “Private School Act”) and that subsequent measures should be taken accordingly.

On May 8, 2015, the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Gwangju Metropolitan City, from June 27, 2013, notified the Defendant of the implementation of follow-up measures as the Plaintiffs already lost not only the principal’s position but also the teacher’s position.

E. Accordingly, the Defendant, on May 11, 2015, performed follow-up measures such as granting the assistant principal an acting as principal and a teacher from May 11, 2015, suspending the payment of wages to the Plaintiffs, recovering remuneration already paid, and notifying the Korea Teachers Pension Corporation, etc. of matters of ipso facto retirement, on the premise that the Plaintiffs lose their principal and a teacher position.

(f) The Plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the instant disadvantage disposition and filed an appeal review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers’ Appeals seeking revocation of the instant disadvantage disposition on May 28, 2015, respectively, but the Appeal Commission for Teachers’ Benefits is the principal position and teacher of the Plaintiffs on July 22, 2015.