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

A. The Defendant educational foundation is the operator of the C University (the original name was the “D University” and was changed to the “C University” through the “E University,” and the following is the current name, regardless of the time of convenience).

On March 1, 1996, the Plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer with a department of automated course of work at Cuniversity and was reappointed as a broadcast video media and assistant professor for a period of four years on March 1, 2010.

B. At the time of the examination for reappointment, the Plaintiff submitted 2 copies of the thesis in the title “F” and “G” (hereinafter above 2, “the thesis subject to examination for reappointment as of March 1, 2010”) as research records when it is necessary to keep the thesis in a lump sum. As a result, the Plaintiff received 200% research performance (a total of 100% per thesis) exceeding 100% of the appointment standard of an assistant professor as of March 1, 2010.

C. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for deliberation on the reappointment with Defendant School Foundation on March 1, 2014, and submitted three copies of the thesis as follows: ① “H”, ② “I” and ③ J” on November 8, 2013.

However, as a result of the examination of the above Part 3 thesis by the teachers' personnel committee of the defendant school foundation, the above Part 1 and Part 2 of the thesis (hereinafter above 2 thesis) were deposited into plagiarism when it is necessary to do so in a lump sum. Accordingly, it is found that the result of expanding the scope of examination to the thesis subject to examination for reappointment on March 1, 2010 is also plagiarism. On November 28, 2013, the plaintiff notified the plaintiff on March 1, 2010 that the thesis subject to examination for reappointment was proved to have been proved to have been plagiarism and the thesis subject to examination for reappointment was proved to have been proved to have been proved to have been plagiarism and requested to provide a vindication and an additional research paper on March 1, 2014.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff rejected the reappointment of the Plaintiff on March 1, 2014, in its explanatory statement (Evidence B No. 12) submitted to the Teachers’ Personnel Committee on December 11, 2013.