The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and its modification in this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. We examine the legality of the lawsuit ex officio.

A. According to the records of recognition, the following facts are revealed.

(1) Article 8 of the Personnel Management Regulations of the Plaintiff provides that “The retirement age of a teacher shall apply mutatis mutandis to the retirement age under Article 47 of the Public Educational Officials Act, and the last day of a semester to which the date on which he reaches the retirement age belongs shall be the date on which he/she reaches the retirement age,” and Article 26 of the same Act provides that

According to the provisions of Article 47 of the Public Educational Officials Act and Articles 2 and 14 (2) of the Higher Education Act, the retirement age of professors who are teachers under Article 14 of the Higher Education Act is 65 years of age.

Sheshe retired on August 31, 2014, the last day of the semester to which the date on which she reaches the age of 65 belongs, after her retirement age reaches the retirement age.

B. Article 10(2) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status provides that “The defendant’s decision on disciplinary action against teachers of various levels of school and other unfavorable measures against their will shall bind the person who has the disposition authority.”

However, the intervenor retired on August 31, 2014, and the decision of the defendant's disciplinary action is not effective against the plaintiff who is the disposition authority, and there is no obligation under public law borne by the plaintiff separately.

In addition, even if the decision of the defendant is revoked, it is not possible for the plaintiff to dismiss the intervenor.

Unlike public officials, the legal relations between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, who are teachers of Dod Private School, are judicial relations, and the Defendant examines disciplinary action, etc. against teachers in accordance with the special law to improve teachers' status, and the school juristic persons and intervenors