1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part resulting from a written appeal under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(A) The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in this court while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted by the first instance court is examined, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court that rejected the plaintiff's assertion are justifiable). 2. The part which was concluded on February 2, 199, "B" in the fifth part of the first instance judgment to "B" is added to "the intervenor.

On the 6th page of the first instance judgment, the "National Human Rights Commission" in the 16th sentence shall be applied to the "National Human Rights Commission."

Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "Operation Rules for Service Activities of C High Schools" in Part 4 is added to "(A evidence 4-2)."

Nos. 8, 15 and 20 of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 15 (including branch numbers, if any), it is recognized that the intervenor had been absent from office 89 times without the permission of the service permission authority during the period from April 23, 2015 to April 23, 2016, from June 1, 2016, and from June 27, 2017, 89 times, 115 times, 26 times of absence without the permission of the service permission authority. Such participant's act constitutes violation of Article 58 (1) of the State Public Officials Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 55 (1) of the Private School Act, and Article 56 of the Act. The judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the intervenor's act constitutes violation of the duty of prohibition of removal from office under Article 58 (1) of the State Public Officials Act and the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the Act.

On November 13, 2016, the fact that the principal of the 1 C High School designated teachers who are not participants as the conductors and allowed students to participate in the instant volunteer activities is without dispute among the parties, and according to this, students shall volunteer service in this case.