1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Since the establishment of the Non-Party Party G, around 1952, the Defendant is a school that has D Kindergartens, D Elementary Schools, D High Schools, D High Schools, and D Female High Schools under its jurisdiction.

On March 1, 1990, the Plaintiff was appointed as a sports teacher at a D High School and worked at D High School from March 1, 2001, and from March 1, 2004, the Plaintiff worked at D High School again from March 1, 2004.

B. Upon the death of C on April 14, 2009, Nonparty E, who served as the Defendant’s Secretariat, served as the chief executive officer, was inside Nonparty F as the chief executive officer in the Defendant’s form and served as the chief executive officer.

E On November 23, 2012, this Court rendered a five-year sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of embezzlement, etc. after raising approximately one billion won from the Defendant’s accounts of school expenses from the Defendant’s accounts, and the said judgment became final and conclusive after the appellate court and the final appeal.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Gohap81, 328, Seoul High Court Decision 2012No4178, Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6389).

As the above criminal trial against E is in progress, F was dismissed from office of the president on December 18, 2012, and it was necessary to appoint a new president.

Nonparty G, a major child of C, was declared bankrupt at the time, and was disqualified for directors under the Private School Act and the State Public Officials Act. Ultimately, Nonparty H, a fraud of G, was appointed as the president of the Defendant on August 1, 2013.

However, some powers, including the Plaintiff, Nonparty I, and J, share the same purport that “C’s son ought to be the Defendant president” and organized the secondary K (hereinafter “K”) and began activities to appoint G as the president.

On April 7, 2015, the head of the D High School judged that the degree of misconduct was significant, such as the Plaintiff's leaving his workplace and leading illegal demonstrations, failure to comply with the principal's instructions, and installation of illegal posts, and proposed disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.

Defendant H, the chief director of the board of directors, completed an investigation with respect to the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, and on April 28, 2015, the grounds for disciplinary action are as shown in the attached Form.