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 is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 53-2(7) of the Private School Act provides that “The period of 15 days or more during the deliberation process” that provides a teacher with an opportunity to state his/her opinion may not be interpreted by limiting that the date when the teachers’ personnel committee is held to deliberate whether he/she is reappointed or the date when the teachers’ personnel committee is notified of his/her job performance evaluation shall be the initial date.” Thus, the Plaintiff’s interpretation shall include all the whole process of submitting materials and explanatory documents regarding the teacher’s job performance evaluation on November 28, 2018. Thus, the Plaintiff’s request for materials for the teacher’s job performance evaluation to the Intervenor on December 24, 2018, and the Intervenor’s request for materials for the teacher’s job performance evaluation and submission of explanatory documents may not be deemed to violate the procedure prescribed in Article 53-2(

However, even under the premise of the above interpretation by the Plaintiff, the points and the grounds for evaluating teachers' occupational evaluations are basic data to ascertain specific facts about meeting the requirements for reappointment, and it is essential for the Intervenor to vindicate the grounds for the revocation of reappointment and prepare materials therefor. In light of various circumstances presented by the first instance court, including the fact that the Intervenor held and deliberated the teachers' personnel committee before notifying the result of the teachers' occupational evaluation and the Plaintiff did not grant the intervenors an opportunity to state their opinions at all, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have given the intervenors an opportunity to state their opinions for a fixed period of not less than 15 days during the course of deliberation of reappointment as prescribed in Article 53-2(7) of the Private School Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion

2. The plaintiff's claim is justified.