A. The Plaintiff is a corporation whose purpose is to operate a private teaching institute business, such as running “C University” (hereinafter “C University”).

Since the Defendant’s punishment of the president of the Plaintiff Corporation was the birth of the Crd president, who was newly appointed on July 24, 1996 as the agent of the Crd president, performed the duties of the head of the planning office by promoting to Grade III in general service on July 1, 2004. From March 1, 2007, the Defendant was released from his position on October 1, 2007, on the grounds that he did not work for a person who was issued to the Library as a library manager and did not have any objection to the personnel affairs, he was occupied in the president’s office and brought gasoline into the president’s office and attempted to prevent fire.

The plaintiff kept the defendant in a waiting position by July 30, 2008, while maintaining the class of class 3 in general service from August 1, 2008 and assigned him as a library employee.

B. On January 18, 2013, the Plaintiff held a disciplinary committee against the Defendant and resolved to dismiss the Defendant on the ground that (i) absence from office and absence from office without permission; (ii) non-performance of personnel orders and refusal to perform his/her duties; (iii) unauthorized travel; (iv) non-payment of university-use vehicles; and (v) refusal to receive postal items; and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s president removed the Defendant on January 29, 2013.

C. On January 17, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal against the Plaintiff’s removal disposition (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gahap2988), and on October 2, 2014, the court of first instance ruled that the removal disposition is null and void on the ground that there is procedural defect in the composition of the disciplinary committee that decided to dismiss the Defendant against the Defendant.

However, on May 15, 2015, the second instance court (Seoul High Court 2014Na53259) judged that the organization of the disciplinary committee is legitimate, and the grounds for disciplinary action against the defendant are also recognized, and that the removal disposition cannot be deemed to have abused or exceeded the discretion of disciplinary action, and dismissed the defendant's claim.