2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. From September 1, 2001, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as C University D and professor established and operated by the Intervenor and was in office.

B. On July 4, 2013, the Intervenor requested a disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff to the Cuniversity Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee, and the said Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff from the teaching position on September 13, 2013, upon deliberation of the disciplinary grounds (hereinafter “instant disciplinary grounds”), and on September 27, 2013, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff as of October 1, 2013 (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”).

Grounds for disciplinary action.

1. From July 201 to January 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff sent a medal to the faculty members more than 90 times in total. From November 27, 2012, “In the event it is charged of violating the Special Act, it would be likely that the sentence will be presumed without a fine, and that it would be further presumed without a fine.” On December 10, 2012, “In the event it is charged with violation of the Special Act, it would be possible to publish the resignation name of the president of the non-recogn, and send it to the university or college staff members more than 90 times in total.” On November 27, 2012, 201, the Plaintiff sent to the president of the non-recognium, and then, at our college or university’s emblance, he would be found guilty of the content of this case’s temporary director’s embling and embl. 2013.”

From this point of view, it is necessary to observe the university faculty as a professor by spreading the abstract and false facts about the identified matter.