2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The decision made by the Defendant on June 1, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor on the claim for revocation of the disposition of cancellation of concurrent office and non-existence of a full-time teacher and non-existence of a concurrent office shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The reasoning for the judgment of this court in this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of this court shall be as follows: (b) the 3-party 14 below the 15-party 13-party 13-party 13-party 13-party 15-party 15-party 15-party 15 of the 15-party 15-party 15 of the 15-party 15-party 15 of the 14-party 14-party 2 of the 14-party 14-party 2 of the 14-party 14-party 2 of the

2. Part to be used again; and

Furthermore, we examine whether the grounds for termination of the instant case under Article 5 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case are recognized.

In examining whether “a person who has a profound adverse effect on the honor and management of an hospital annexed to a university” is “a person who has caused a serious adverse impact on the reputation and management of the hospital annexed to the university,” the fact that a specific and specific fact that was made after the enforcement of the above provision needs to be fully supported by objective evidence or data in order to avoid the concerns that the person in charge of the evaluation and the person may intervene and to minimize the infringement

Of the grounds for termination of the instant case cited by the Plaintiff, the part concerning Article 5(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case concerning “a civil petition (2007-2014-2014) filed by the Intervenor from the patient he/she provided medical treatment” and “non-effective act, etc. in medical treatment and clinical education, etc.” is as stated in the process of the decision on the examination of the instant petition. In addition to the written evidence and the whole purport of oral argument, the civil petition filed by the Intervenor from the patient who provided medical treatment to the patient was generated from 2007 to 2014, and the major presented a written statement to the effect that he/she received non-discriminatory and unfair treatment from the Intervenor in the medical treatment and clinical education from the Intervenor, etc., it is difficult to view that the Intervenor’s act of termination of the instant case’s enforcement rule was not legitimate, and it cannot be deemed that the Intervenor’s act of termination of the instant case’s objective and objective grounds, other than the Intervenor’s act of termination, cannot be seen as legitimate.

3) Sub-decisions

Article 5(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case and Article 2(1)2 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case against the Intervenor are unlawful. However, Article 5(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case is lawful. Nevertheless, the Defendant rendered the instant decision under the premise that Article 5(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case is illegal. However, although the Defendant did not recognize the grounds for termination under Article 5(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case with respect to the Intervenor, the conclusion that it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the termination of the instant case is justifiable. Thus, the instant decision cannot be deemed unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair. Thus, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim

Judges Doing and decorations (Presiding Judge)