1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning the instant case by the court of the first instance is to dismiss "the Intervenor" of the 6th, 20th, and 11th, as "the Plaintiff", and 2th, respectively.

2) Except as delineated below, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. We dismiss the part of the judgment of the

2) In principle, when a disciplinary measure is taken against a private school teacher in relation to the appropriateness of a disciplinary measure, it is deemed that the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure has abused the discretion that has been entrusted to the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure since the disciplinary measure was unlawful in light of social norms. If the disciplinary measure is deemed to be a disposition that has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it should be deemed that it is objectively unreasonable in light of the characteristics of duties, the contents and nature of the offense constituting the grounds for the disciplinary measure, and the purpose of taking the grounds for the disciplinary measure and the circumstances accompanying the disciplinary measure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du2097, Feb. 1, 2008; 1). Furthermore, the following facts, other than the deliberation, performance, and force of the person subject to the disciplinary measure, are also considered in the case where the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure has abused the authority to take the disciplinary measure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du3686, Jan. 26, 20698).