1. On March 28, 2018, the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of the disposition of suspension from office in February 2018 between the Plaintiff and the president of the National University.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a national university corporation which establishes and operates an elementary school attached to the college of education at B University.

On June 21, 1989, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a teacher. On March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff was transferred to an elementary school attached to the college of education at B (hereinafter “instant elementary school”) and was promoted to an assistant principal of the instant elementary school on March 2, 2016.

The plaintiff was newly appointed as a public educational official, and was in a state of maintaining his status as a public educational official even at the time of transfer to the elementary school of this case.

However, as the Act on the Establishment and Operation of B University (hereinafter “BG”) was amended on January 23, 2013 by Act No. 11621, the faculty members of the instant elementary school including the Plaintiff were placed in the situation where it is necessary to maintain their status as a public educational official or select whether they will be appointed as the Intervenor’s faculty members.

(Supplementary Rule (Article 11612, Article 2 of the Act No. 11612, Jan. 23, 2013). A Review of the evidence No. 1, 2013, the fact that the personnel order issued to the plaintiff was issued by the intervenor or its affiliated agency after January 24, 2014, which was enforced by the above amendment B B, can be recognized. Thus, the plaintiff seems to have retired from a public educational official before and after January 24, 2014, and is appointed as the intervenor's teacher.

From November 5, 2016 to November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff visited E-ublic Schlool, an elementary school (referring to E-ublic Schlool, an elementary school located in the Lao New Swegs State F) of the instant elementary school, under the direction of 14 students, together with D, as teachers of the instant elementary school (hereinafter referred to as “victims”).

(hereinafter “The instant visit activity”). On November 12, 2016, the victim refers to the head of the living division of the instant elementary school [the Plaintiff refers to “G” (the 32 pages of the complaint and the 13 pages of the brief dated October 4, 2019; hereinafter “the head of the living division”).