2. The defendant confirms that his dismissal from position against the plaintiff on January 19, 2007 is null and void.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. Status of the party

The defendant is a school foundation that establishes and operates B University (hereinafter referred to as "B") and the plaintiff was appointed as an assistant professor of the above B Department of C on March 1, 1996 and was dismissed by the defendant on August 14, 2006, while he was employed as a professor of the Department of C from April 1, 2003.

(b) Circumstances of dismissal;

(1) On December 10, 2002, the Plaintiff applied for exemption from obligation to return to the U.S. Embassy in the course of applying for exemption from obligation to return to obtain one visa from the U.S. Embassy in relation to entrance into the U.S. University (the period between December 19, 2000 and February 28, 2002). The Plaintiff is carrying out joint research activities as a professor of the U.S. D. University from December 18, 200 to August 31, 203 without due administrative procedures and approval and approval. The Plaintiff received the consent of the president on the ground that he/she obtained the consent of the president’s entry into the name of the president in the name of B, stating that he/she will continue to return to the Republic of Korea, even if the foregoing faculty does not apply the duty to return to the Republic of Korea.

(2) On February 3, 2004, the Plaintiff criticizeed the personnel policy of the president of B University E, and entered B University professor F as a "the head who declared bankrupt." On September 3, 2004, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 1 million from the Daejeon District Court on September 3, 2004 due to defamation and received a penalty of KRW 1 million as an honorary order.

(3) On April 21, 2004, E filed a petition with the Daejeon Eastern Police Station on the ground that “E was a person who was unable to obtain the name of professor belonging to the Femb Council and the Femb Council of Professors,” and that E was a person who was unable to obtain the name of professor belonging to the Femb Council for the purpose of becoming the president of the B University, by posting a report on the fact that E transferred a church to become the president of the B University and exercised to cause double occupation.” While it was clearly identified that E was a person who was a person who was unable to obtain the name of professor belonging to the Bemb Council among the persons who was the respondent of the foregoing case, the said petition was revoked.

(4) On October 19, 2004, the Plaintiff received a notice of the result of a teacher’s disciplinary measure (written warning) from the president on October 28, 2004 on the ground that (a) the Plaintiff was awarded a master’s degree after deliberation by a graduate school operating committee on January 15, 2004, on the ground that (b) the Plaintiff did not submit a thesis review report and a paper completion paper to the graduate students of foreign nationality in the course of the Plaintiff’s master’s degree, in violation of the provisions.

(5) On October 27, 2005, Daejeon MBC broadcasted real estate speculation in the Taeduk Research Complex located in Daejeon Daejeon, and reported that B price was paid higher than the approved amount of the Ministry of Science and Technology (hereinafter “the report of this case”) when purchasing real estate owned by the G company located in the Daejeon-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong.

(6) On November 25, 2005, the Plaintiff, the general secretary of the Daejeon Faculty Council (hereinafter referred to as the “Professor”) filed a criminal charge (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accusation”) against the Defendant K, B, E, B, B, B, B, and B, in connection with the purchase of the instant real estate with the Daejeon District Public Prosecutors’ Office, on the grounds of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accusation”), and the Daejeon District Public Prosecutors’ Office reported this accusation.

(7) In order to investigate the particulars of the accusation, etc. of this case, the president of the BJ had established an honorary inspection committee. The honorary inspection committee summoned the Plaintiff on April 6, 2006 and April 7, 2006, but the Plaintiff refused to comply with the above summons, and the Plaintiff provided an objection to the above inspection committee’s meeting on April 14, 2006, together with other professors who belong to the professor’s council on the third day of summons.

(8) On July 28, 2006, the Defendant’s teachers’ disciplinary committee (hereinafter “the teachers’ disciplinary committee”) determined that the Plaintiff violated the provisions of Articles 57 (Duty to Comply), 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity), and 66 (Prohibition of Collective Action) of the State Public Officials Act, which are applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 55 of the Private School Act, on the grounds of grounds of disciplinary reasons stated in the attached Form, etc., and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff by unanimous consent.

(9) On August 14, 2006, the president of the BJ notified the Plaintiff that he was dismissed on the grounds as above (hereinafter “the dismissal of this case”).

(10) The Plaintiff filed an application with the Daejeon District Court to suspend the effect of the dismissal of this case. On October 10, 2006, the Daejeon District Court decided that the dismissal of this case was suspended until the decision on the merits of this case becomes final and conclusive.

(11) On January 9, 2007, the Defendant issued a disposition of removal from position as professor pursuant to Article 48(2)2 of the Articles of Incorporation. (hereinafter “instant removal from position”).

(c) relevant regulations;

(1) Private School Act

Article 55 (Service)

The provisions concerning teachers of national and public schools shall apply mutatis mutandis to the service of private school teachers.

of this section.

Article 61 (Causes and Kinds of Disciplinary Action)

(1) If a teacher of a private school falls under any of the following subparagraphs, a person authorized to appoint and dismiss him:

shall be required to make a resolution, and a disciplinary action shall be taken according to the result of the resolution.

section 22.

1. Being assigned to teachers in violation of this Act and other education-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

2. When he violates or neglects his duties;

3. When he commits an act detrimental to the dignity of a teacher regardless of whether he is on or off duty.

(2) Disciplinary measures shall be removal, dismissal, suspension from office, reduction of salary, and reprimand.

Article 64 (Requests for Resolution on Disciplinary Action)

A person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss a private school teacher shall be subject to disciplinary reasons under Article 61 (1) among his/her teachers.

(2) If there is a person, he shall have jurisdiction over the grounds for such disciplinary action after making a full investigation.

the teachers' disciplinary committee shall request the disciplinary committee to decide on the disciplinary action.

(2) State Public Officials Act

Article 57 (Duty to Comply with)

Any public official shall obey any order of his superior officer with respect to his duties.

Article 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity)

No public official shall do any act detrimental to his dignity, regardless of whether it is for his duties.

(2).

Article 66 (Prohibition of Collective Action)

(1) No public official shall do any collective act for any labor campaign, or activities other than public services.

officer, except as a public official who is actually engaged in labor.

(2) Above ④ omitted.

(3) Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status

Article 6 (Guarantee of Teachers' Status, etc.)

(1) Teachers shall be sentenced to punishment, disciplinary action or other causes not determined by Acts.

No leave of absence, demotion, or dismissal against his/her will shall be made.

(2) A teacher shall commit an act of corruption or any similar act committed in connection with the operation of the relevant school.

Reporting or filing a complaint with the relevant administrative agency, investigation agency, etc.;

Due to the act of disciplinary action, any disadvantage or service, such as disciplinary action, without justifiable grounds.

No sound discrimination shall be made (No. 4, 2006).

(3) The defendant's articles of incorporation

Article 48 (Release from Position and Dismissal)

(2) A person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss shall assign a position to any of the following teachers:

agency, the agency may do so.

1. A person who is incapable of performing his duties, or whose performance is extremely poor, or a teacher;

A person whose working attitude is extremely unfaithful.

2. A person for whom a resolution on disciplinary action is requested;

Article 64 (Fact-Finding and Stating Opinions)

(1) In examining a disciplinary case, the teachers' disciplinary committee shall investigate the truth and injury in examining the disciplinary case, and demand the teachers' disciplinary committee.

He/she shall hear his/her statement before making a resolution on guidance: Provided, That a lawsuit shall be filed in writing not less than twice.

If a refund fails to comply, a resolution on disciplinary action may be made by clearly stating the facts in the record.

Article 66 (Regular Participation in Disciplinary Action, etc.)

When the teachers' disciplinary committee decides on a disciplinary case, the conduct, performance, and service record of a person to be disciplined;

The details of the request for disciplinary action, and other circumstances shall be taken into consideration in relation to the achievements, vision, and the request for disciplinary action.

Article 66-2 (Prescription of Disciplinary Reason)

If two years have passed after a disciplinary cause occurs, a request for the disciplinary decision of a teacher shall be made.

institution may not conduct such activities.

(4) The defendant's provision on the personnel management of teachers

Article 52 (Release from Position and Dismissal)

(2) The president shall assign a position to any of the following faculty members:

agency, the agency may do so.

1. Person who lacks ability to perform his duties, or whose performance record is extremely poor;

2. A person for whom a resolution on disciplinary action is requested;

Article 53 (Disciplinary Action)

If a teacher falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall be subject to disciplinary action against removal, dismissal, suspension from office, reduction of salary, and reprimand:

of the corporation.

1. Disciplinary actions provided for in the State Public Officials Act, the Public Educational Officials Act and the Articles of incorporation of school foundations and the Electrical Research Institutes;

applicable to such reasons

2. When a teacher who has taken an oath as a teacher of this school has violated the said provisions.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 3, Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 9-1, Gap evidence 19-5, Gap evidence 20-1 through 9, Gap evidence 21-3, Eul evidence 26-1 through 5, Eul evidence 41-2, Eul evidence 43-1 through 43, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

2. Parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to the dismissal of this case

(A) The first ground for the disciplinary action

The accusation of this case was made according to the decision of the faculty council, and the school juristic person's suspicion of trade is not subject to the grounds for disciplinary action.

(B) The second ground for disciplinary action

Since the two-year period of extinctive prescription has elapsed from February 25, 2004, which caused the grounds for the disciplinary action in this part, the disciplinary action cannot be said to become the grounds for the disciplinary action.

(C) The third ground for disciplinary action

The plaintiff did not have a duty to comply with the request for summons by the Honorary Inspection Committee, and there is no lack of any collective action to interfere with the investigation. Therefore, it is unfair to regard it as a ground for disciplinary action.

(d) argument on the grounds for disciplinary participation.

In addition, given the grounds for disciplinary action, the case on which the president affixes the official seal of the letter of exemption from the obligation to return and the case on the master’s degree of foreign IT has already been subject to written warnings, which is contrary to the principle of res judicata. The case on the complaint against the Plaintiff by the president is also a case that has already been terminated by the cancellation of this complaint by the president as the Plaintiff’s death. Therefore, it is unreasonable to consider such contents as the grounds for disciplinary action of

(2) As to the removal from position of this case

Article 48(2)2 of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, based on which the instant disposition of removal was based, “a person against whom the resolution of disciplinary action was requested,” but a disciplinary procedure against the Plaintiff has already been terminated, so the instant disposition of removal has no effect.

B. The defendant's assertion

(1) As to the dismissal of this case

(A) Claim on the first disciplinary cause

The complaint of this case was led by the Plaintiff, and the purchase of the 2 campus was already decided through consultation with the faculty council, the labor union, and the student council. Despite the fact that all of the purchase process through the press reports, the press reports explain all of the purchase process to the prosecution after the press reports and the defendant's internal audit, the plaintiff's accusation to the prosecution is an unlawful act that defames the honor of the defendant and the B.

(B) The second ground for disciplinary action

The statute of limitations on this part was not completed at the time of the instant disciplinary action.

(C) The third ground for disciplinary action

Since the Honorary Inspection Committee is based on Article 64 of the Private School Act, the plaintiff's refusal to comply with the request for legitimate withdrawal twice, and interference with the investigation of the Committee with other professors' council members on the three-time date violates each subparagraph of Article 61 (1) of the Private School Act and Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 57 (Duty of Compliance), 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity), and 66 (Duty of Prohibition of Collective Conduct) of the Private School Act.

(d) argument on the grounds for disciplinary participation.

The plaintiff's past disciplinary power constitutes legitimate grounds for disciplinary action, which takes into account the usual conduct.

(2) As to the removal from position of this case

The plaintiff's dismissal from position is justified as it constitutes "a person who is required to make a disciplinary decision under the defendant's articles of incorporation because the disciplinary procedure is not finally finalized."

3. Determination as to the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the dismissal disposition of this case

A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action exist

(1) The first reasons for the disciplinary action

(A) Whether the Plaintiff led to the instant accusation

According to the purport of Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 27 to 29, and the whole arguments, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff sent the contents of the deliberation meeting of the faculty council to each professor who is a member of the faculty council, as a mail. However, the plaintiff led the opinion of the faculty council with this only.

It is insufficient to see that it was, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

(B) Whether the transaction of the instant real property was cruel

According to Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 11 to 2, Eul evidence 12 to 14, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 23 to 25, Eul evidence 24 to 26, and Eul evidence 1 to 26 before the oral argument, the defendant was not allowed to gather opinions of the professor's Council, labor union, and student council on January 17, 2005; 2. The defendant was not allowed to hold 1 to 1 to 2 to 1 to 2 to 3 to 5 to 1 to 5 to 1 to 2 to 3 to 5 to 1 to 5 to 5 to 1 to 2 to 3 to 5 to 5 to 1 to 5 to 2 to 1 to 3 to 5 to 5 to 1 to 5 to 2 to 3 to 5 to 5 to 1 to 5 to 1 to 1 to 2 to 4 to 1 to 1 to 4 to 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 1 to 5 to 1 to 5 to 2 to 1 to 2 to 1 to 3.

(C) Sub-decisions

No evidence exists to deem that the Plaintiff led to the instant accusation. The Defendant made efforts to explain the suspicion of trading through a multilateral conference or briefing session with respect to the suspicion of trading the instant real estate. However, unlike the details to be reported at the previous purchase process (a total of KRW 1.2 billion shall be additionally paid to G company and O companies) at the explanatory meeting explaining the audit result, the director actually spent excessive donation approval amount and added KRW 1.2 billion to G company's purchase expenses for the instant real estate transaction at the same time, and the fact that it was revealed that there was an additional disbursement of KRW 1.2 billion for the purchase of the instant real estate at the same time, which was made at the same time, was insufficient to explain why there was any difference in the instant real estate transaction. Since the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status was amended on October 4, 2006, the establishment of Article 6(2) does not constitute a legitimate act to inform the pertinent administrative agency or investigation agency of his status or disadvantage related to corruption, and thus, it does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action or discrimination.

(2) The second reasons for disciplinary action

The grounds for disciplinary action in this part are not the Plaintiff’s defamation of professor F, but the Plaintiff’s criminal punishment was imposed accordingly. As such, the statute of limitations runs from September 3, 2004, which was the date of issuing a summary order by the court against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the above grounds for disciplinary action in this case did not have expired yet, and thus, it constitutes legitimate grounds for disciplinary action.

(3) The third disciplinary cause

(A) According to Article 64 of the Private School Act, a person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss a private school teacher shall, when there is a person falling under the grounds for disciplinary action under Article 61(1) from among the teachers under his/her jurisdiction, conduct a full investigation in advance, and then request the relevant teachers’ disciplinary committee having jurisdiction over the relevant grounds for disciplinary action. As such, the committee for investigating honorary status of a private school teacher provides that a person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss a private school teacher shall be required to make a resolution on the disciplinary action. Thus, the committee for investigating honorary status of a private school teacher

(B) The Investigation Committee may investigate the existence of grounds for disciplinary action against a person subject to a disciplinary action before the request for a disciplinary resolution. Thus, the summons for the person subject to a disciplinary action may be interpreted as refusing to make a statement unfavorable to him/her, such as a general criminal case. However, in light of the fact that the defendant's articles of incorporation stipulate that when the person subject to a disciplinary action fails to comply with a written summons at least twice after the request for a disciplinary resolution was made, the relevant facts shall be specified in the records and that the disciplinary resolution may be made. Thus, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff has an official duty to attend the investigation of the Honorary Investigation Committee for investigating whether the disciplinary action was conducted before the request for a disciplinary resolution was made, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have violated the duty to obey Article 55 and Article 57 of the State Public Officials Act.

(C) In addition, Article 6(1) of the State Public Officials Act prohibits "collective action for activities other than public duties" to be interpreted as "collective action that affects the public interest, such as failure to perform the duty of care for the purpose of violating the public interest" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2310, Feb. 14, 1992; 2003Do2960, Apr. 15, 2005; 2003Do2960, Apr. 15, 2005; 2003Do2960, Apr. 15, 2005; 2005; 200Do4477, Feb. 6, 2005; 2006Do477, Feb. 6, 2005).

(4) Other extenuating circumstances.

It is not the Plaintiff’s act itself but the fact that the Defendant was subject to a written warning twice due to such mistake. Thus, this is not contrary to the principle of res judicata, and even if the president E cancels the petition by being subject to the Plaintiff’s apology as an individual qualification, it is a separate issue that the Defendant considers it as a ground for disciplinary action. Thus, it is legitimate to consider the above ground for disciplinary action as a ground for disciplinary action.

B. Whether to abuse the right of disciplinary action against the dismissal of this case

(1) Since the Plaintiff’s act of impairing the honor of a professor at the same time is contrary to the professor’s principal portion and impairing his dignity, it constitutes a ground for disciplinary action under the Private School Act, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a ground for disciplinary action under the Private School Act. However, even so, if it is deemed that the degree of disciplinary action is too unreasonable in light of the content and nature of the ground for disciplinary action against a teacher at a private school and the administrative purpose that is to be achieved by such disciplinary action, it shall be deemed an illegal disposition beyond the scope of discretion.

(2) As seen earlier, considering the following circumstances: (a) the first and third grounds for the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff do not fall under the justifiable grounds for the instant disciplinary action; (b) the Plaintiff had received written warnings twice; (c) under the overall purport of the statement and arguments as stated in the evidence No. 22-4 through No. 22, the Plaintiff deposited in the National University Development Fund for 8 times from 1998 to 1999; (b) the Plaintiff was commissioned as an operating member of the National Qua Association for 3 times in 1999, 2002, and 206; and (c) on April 12, 2006, taking into account various circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the Plaintiff’s grant of merit from the Defendant, and having contributed to the school and community through research and education, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff’s discretion to prevent the Plaintiff from performing his duties as a professor of the instant disciplinary action is clearly beyond the scope of the instant disciplinary action.

E. Sub-determination

Therefore, the dismissal of this case is null and void, and as long as the defendant contests this issue, the plaintiff as the plaintiff is recognized as the benefit to seek confirmation.

4. Determination as to the existence of grounds for the removal from position and legality of the removal from position

A. According to the above recognition, the above disciplinary procedure was already completed by dismissing the plaintiff from office on August 14, 2006 by a request for a disciplinary decision made by the plaintiff, and the subsequent procedure for examining the appeal or the instant case.

Even if the procedure, such as a lawsuit, is under way, it is merely a procedure of ex post judicial review of the terminated disciplinary procedure, and even if the court has rendered a decision to suspend the validity of the dismissal disposition of this case, it is merely a meaning that the validity should be suspended until the judgment on the merits becomes final and conclusive, and it is not a restoration of the already closed disciplinary procedure. Thus, there is no ground for removal from the position of this case against the plaintiff.

B. Therefore, the removal from position of this case is null and void, and as long as the defendant contests this, the benefit to seek confirmation is also recognized.

5. Conclusion

Thus, each claim against the defendant against the defendant is reasonable, and all of them shall be accepted.

Judges Kim Jong-ran

B. Prizes for judges

1. On November 24, 2005, the Plaintiff explained in detail that there is no defect in the process of purchasing the 2 campus as a result of the corporate audit conducted by the corporate auditor on the whole members at the briefing session. However, on November 25, 2005, the following day, the fact that the Plaintiff filed an accusation with the Prosecutor as a violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Misappropriation of trust) and the Specific Economic Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Economic Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”) with the President of the Teaching Council, the staff head of the Trade Union, and the Secretary General of the Investigation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “General Council”) and the Director of the 4th Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “General Director of the Investigation Committee”) who attended and submitted a written statement to the Prosecutor and the Director of the Investigation Committee as a professor on November 25, 2005.

The plaintiff's act was filed with the aim of having the defendant's employees in charge of the operation of the school and the main affairs of the school receive criminal punishment, thereby impairing the honor of the defendant's employees and their families as well as causing a significant mental and economic suffering. Accordingly, it is determined that the 2 campus purchase was reported to the outside of the school as if the B university or the school foundation acquired real estate by unlawful means, and that the honor and trust of the school was significantly predicted.

The evidence to prove in advance whether the reporter has been absent from the prosecutor's office is insufficient in order to broadcast the prosecutor's complaint to the MBC Daejeon News.

2. On January 13, 2005, it was confirmed that he was sentenced to a fine of one million won due to the suspicion of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (No. 24181 of 2004) due to defamation against the same professor (FI), and it is determined that the act of damaging the reputation of a specific professor by using such Internet information and communications network is a fact that seriously impairing the dignity of a professor as a professor due to the act of causing severe combustibility between the same professor and the same professor.

3. Despite multiple summonss made by the committee for the investigation of honorary honor (the first summons on April 6, 2006, the second summons on April 7, 2006, and the third summons on April 14, 2006) composed of the president’s order, the person refuses to comply with such summons, and even when the person is summoned on April 14, 2006 on April 14, 2006, it is recognized that he/she participated in the meeting room of the committee for investigation of the case for the investigation of a school name collectively with the members of the teachers’ union and even interfered with the investigation.

The action is considered to violate the duty of the teachers and staff to obey the regulations and to prohibit collective action.

4. The professor is obliged to maintain more strict dignity in that the professor’s act of injury to dignity is likely to undermine not only the principal but also the professors’ trust in the society because it is necessary to improve the character and qualities that will always serve as a resignation and quality and to seek the academic support and educational principles and to have a full-time education for students. In addition, it is common sense to confirm the facts with caution when filing a criminal charge against others.

B. A professor who has a higher social responsibility and has not carefully verified the facts about the affairs of the university to which he belongs, and filing a criminal charge against the president, president, and club professor and staff member to the prosecution is considered to be a professor.

In other words, without clear evidence, the act of filing a criminal complaint with the president and four other directors through consultation on breach of trust and violation of trust for the purpose of criminal punishment, posting a letter that damages the honor of professors on the in-school Internet information and communication network and thus, the act of fineing is required high level of ethics and morality.

It is said that university professors have failed to maintain their dignity by damaging their body or dignity inside and outside the country.

In addition, on October 28, 2004, the Plaintiff was issued a written warning through the Disciplinary Committee with respect to the foreign IT master program. On April 13, 2004, the Plaintiff was accused of defamation by spreading a fatal false fact irrelevant to the inside school physician in the domestic Internet information and communication network, and then caused the President's death to the president, and the president caused a fluence in relation to the case for which the complaint was withdrawn. In the past, the Plaintiff prepared a school public document containing a false personnel announcement submitted to the Republic of Korea and the U.S. government (the consent of exemption from the obligation of returning to Korea, signed his official seal without due process from the person in charge, affixed his official seal, and received a warning in relation to the issuance of the documents, etc., and the Plaintiff's death should always be considered as a student professor for the last ten years, and the Plaintiff's dignity should always be considered as a student professor for the last ten years.