1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

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 modification or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this 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.

2. Details to be corrected or added;

A. In the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance judgment from Nos. 17-20 to 18-2, “Although considering other circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff at the time, the instant disposition is objectively and objectively unreasonable and cannot be deemed as deviating from or abusing discretionary power, which is the person having authority to take the disciplinary action, because it considerably lacks validity under social norms,” and even if considering various circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, each of the above circumstances and the evidence Nos. 1 to 34 (including the serial number) submitted by the Plaintiff are insufficient to recognize that “the instant disposition is objectively unreasonable, and thus is obviously unreasonable, and thus, is deviating from or abusing the discretionary power that has been assigned to the person having authority to take the disciplinary action because it is obviously inappropriate under social norms.”

B. In the case of a party branch, the Plaintiff asserts that ① the Plaintiff’s act of participating in the instant party branch does not constitute “an act contrary to the public interest and neglecting the duty of good faith.” Thus, there is no reason to impose “prohibited group act”, and ② even if it falls under such reason, the instant disposition was abused or abused in light of the circumstances leading up to the Plaintiff’s participation in the instant party branch or the equity with teachers belonging to other offices of education, etc.

However, in light of relevant legal principles, in light of the various circumstances in the statement of the court of first instance, which are acknowledged by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is actively in the strike for the instant year.