1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, in addition to the supplement of the first instance court's decision as to this case, it is identical to the entry of the reasons for the first instance court's decision. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Supplement of judgment

A. Even if it is assumed that the grounds for disciplinary action against the Defendant joining the Defendant (the dismissal of the Chief Director) are recognized, the grounds for the first disposition cannot be deemed as legitimate grounds for dismissal from position against the Defendant joining the Defendant.

The reasons are as follows.

1) In full view of the entries in evidence No. 19 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged. A) The Plaintiff’s disciplinary ground against the Defendant’s Intervenor’s “performance of duties” was based on disciplinary action against the Defendant’s Intervenor, and Article 61(1)2 of the Private School Act and Article 56(1)2 of the D University’s Articles of Incorporation, based on the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, were subject to disciplinary action against the Defendant’s Intervenor on September 18, 2019.

Specific contents presented by the Plaintiff due to negligence of duties are ① insufficient preparation for the evaluation of the instant case (the evaluation of basic capacity of universities in 2018), ② the payment of wage agreements and benefits that were conducted without approval by the board of directors, ③ the preparation of excessive self-budget budget and the improvement of operational balance related to school operation.

B) The Intervenor joining the Defendant filed a petition review with the Defendant seeking nullification or revocation of the above disciplinary measure. The Defendant: (a) determined that the grounds for the above-mentioned (2), (3) of the specific negligence of duties presented by the Plaintiff are not recognized; (b) the grounds for the disciplinary measure against the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s negligence of duties are recognized; and (c) determined that the Plaintiff’s disciplinary measure against the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s negligence of duties is difficult to be deemed to be abuse of discretion. Accordingly, on November 27, 2019, the Defendant dismissed the Defendant’s petition review claim against the Intervenor’s Intervenor