Teacher given red card for disrupting class... Are parents' continued protests a violation of teaching rights? - South Korea

In South Korea, a teacher who restrained a student who had playfully disrupted class during class time was suffering from depression and other damage due to persistent protests from parents, and educational authorities are demanding that the parents exercise their right to teach. infringement
It was determined that it did. In response, the parents filed a lawsuit to have the Committee for the Protection of Teaching Rights cancel the decision, but the final results will be announced on the 14th.
On the 14th, the Second Division of the Supreme Court canceled the action taken by the Committee for the Protection of Educational Rights brought against the educational authorities by Mr. A, a guardian.
Open the date for adjudication of the appeal of the lawsuit. Previously, in April 2021, Mr. B, an elementary school teacher, wrote the student's name on the blackboard and said that if a second grade student playfully disrupted the class, he would receive a "red card."
I had them clean for about 10 minutes after school. After learning of this fact, Mr. A continued to request a change in homeroom teacher after school that day and refused the students' attendance.
Stressed out by Mr. A's persistent complaints, Mr. B, a teacher, takes sick leave due to depression.
Educational authorities convened a committee for the protection of religious rights to determine whether there was a violation of religious rights. The Commission for the Protection of Educational Rights determined that Mr. A's actions constituted a violation of educational rights, and stated,
A notification of the results of the measures was sent out, advising that the measures be suspended. Mr. A filed a lawsuit against this disposition. The court of first instance held that Mr. A's actions constituted a violation of religious authority. Mr. A's persistent
The reason is that the complaint infringed on Mr. B's legitimate educational activities. The second umpire's decision was different. The act that Mr. B called a "red card" during class falls under child abuse under the Child Abuse Punishment Act.
It was for a reason. The court of second instance ruled that ``disclosing the names of children who do not comply with training or forcing them to clean their homes is a violation of human dignity.''