2. On October 26, 2010, the Defendant’s decision on revocation of dismissal disposition 2010-270 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor was revoked.

3. The supplementary intervenor’s participation in the total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the supplementary intervenor, and the remainder is borne by the defendant.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a private school teacher who was promoted to the associate professor on October 1, 2000 and on March 1, 2005 as an associate professor on March 1, 2005, since he was appointed as the doctor and full-time lecturer at ○○ University operated by the Plaintiff on March 1, 1997.

However, on July 2, 2010, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor pursuant to Articles 61(1)1 and 61(1)3, 58(1)5, and 55 of the Private School Act (hereinafter “instant disciplinary cause”).

On February 29, 2008, an intervenor of the Disciplinary Reason in the main text was subject to three months of suspension from office due to the Plaintiff Disciplinary Committee’s suspicion of sexual harassment and intrusion of communications information without permission (which was adjusted by the Defendant on March 5, 2008, but became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court on April 15, 2010). Furthermore, an intervenor should endeavor to faithfully perform his/her duties and maintain dignity, such as guidance of students’ personality and personality. However, the intervenor filed a criminal complaint against Nonparty 1, three (3), teaching assistants, and school teachers on July 2008, and spread this fact to the press, without responding to the Plaintiff’s agreement mediation, and created conflicts without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s reputation and dignity by being subject to strong measures of his/her parents’ reputation and dignity as well as by being subject to strong measures of his/her parents on October 30, 208.

Accordingly, on October 26, 2010, the Defendant revoked the dismissal of the instant case on the ground that “the instant disciplinary cause is not recognized” due to the Intervenor’s request for the review of the Intervenor’s appeal (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

An intervenor filed a criminal complaint with a false fact about the student enrollment, teaching assistants, and teaching fees, and thus, his/her basic qualities as an educator was doubtful, and thus refusing to recommend the plaintiff to consult with the teaching staff and withdraw a criminal complaint against the third party, thereby impairing the dignity of the teacher of private school. This constitutes grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to Article 61(1)3 of the Private School Act.

B. Facts of recognition

1) The intervenor's chest measurement

Around September 4, 2007, the intervenor explained the purpose of research, methods of physical measurement, etc. as his/her own laboratory, or without his/her consent, 10 women unilaterally forced female students to be out of his/her inner clothes in the slope, and measured the size of the chest and made them feel sense of shame for some female students.

2) Notice on the criticism of the Intervenor by Nonparty 1 et al. attending the school

On September 19, 2007, students in the first-year branch of ○○ University were dissatisfied with the Intervenor’s details of class and evaluation methods, etc., and Nonparty 1, 2, 3, 4 (hereinafter “second-year students”), and Nonparty 5 et al. were enrolled in Nonparty 1, 2, 3, and 4 (hereinafter “second-year students”), from September 2007 to November 207, or posted an opinion of dissatisfaction or slander against the Intervenor on the bulletin board of the professor Council (hereinafter “the instant bulletin board”) or on the bulletin board of the university as follows (hereinafter “instant bulletin board”).

(6) On September 17, 207, the title “O○ University’s ○○○” was sent out to the front 2nd 6th 1st 1st son’s office, and then sent 7th 2nd 1st son’s son’s son’s son’s 6th son’s 6th son’s 1st son’s 6th son’s 1st son’s 6th son’s 6th son’s 1st son’s 6th son’s 6th son’s 1st son’s 6th son’s 6th son’s 1st son’s 6th son’s 6th son’s 6th son’s 6th son’s 6th son’s 1st son’s son’s son’s 1st son’s son’s 6th son’s 6th son’s 1st son.

On October 1, 2007, the Intervenor’s husband fighted with Nonparty 2, 3, 4, and graduates Nonparty 5, etc. who were enrolled in ○○ University PPC in front of ○ University, and prevented them from posting their opinions.

3) Disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor

From October 8, 2007 to November 5, 2007, the Plaintiff investigated the truth in relation to the posting of the instant case, and on February 29, 2008, the Plaintiff was subject to three months of suspension from office for the intervenors (hereinafter “first disciplinary action”).

The Disciplinary Reason Intervenor, included in the main text, provided that he/she caused the occurrence and expansion of the student’s requirements due to the following acts, thereby causing “an act contrary to the student’s principal” or “an act detrimental to the student’s dignity as a teacher” as prescribed by Articles 55 and 61(1) of the Private School Act, Articles 56 and 63 of the State Public Officials Act, or “an act detrimental to the student’s dignity as a teacher.” ① On September 4, 2007, he/she measured physical measurements against the student for the production of his/her thesis, and gave a sense of shame to the student. ② On September 19, 207, he/she took part in the recording of the conversation between Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 7, without the consent of the student’s husband, he/she was unable to properly gather his/her own methods and provide the student with an opportunity to use his/her clothes in the school without due consideration of the student’s high level of danger and injury.

4) The Intervenor’s criminal complaint

On April 1, 2008, the intervenor filed a petition for review on the first disciplinary action against the defendant, and on April 24, 2008, the intervenor filed a complaint with the prosecutor on April 24, 2008 against the non-party 5, i.e., the two professors, professors, non-party 9, 10, and graduates of the ○ University (hereinafter referred to as "five students, etc.") in common with four students in the ○ University and four students in the ○ University, i.e., non-party 5.

1. On June 29, 2006, Nonparty 9 filed an objection against the consumed goods at the time when the intervenor opened a department, while Nonparty 9 had been holding a faculty meeting at ○○ University’s superior department and office on June 29, 2006. Although the intervenor did not resell the consumed goods, Nonparty 9 brought an objection against the intervenor’s reputation by openly pointing out false information on the intervenor’s face, with the intervenor’s appearance “Seng Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok.” The intervenor’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out false information as the intervenor’s posting act. On February 2, 2006, Nonparty 5, including five students, etc., professors, Nonparty 9, Nonparty 10, and Nonparty 5, such as graduates, conspiredd with the Plaintiff by openly pointing out false information as in this case.

5) The intervenor's various appeals

On July 21, 2008, the Defendant changed the first disciplinary action into one month for the reason that “The grounds for disciplinary action ①, ② are recognized only, and the grounds for disciplinary action are not recognized.”

In September 2008, the intervenor was recommended by the plaintiff in early September 2008 to compromise from the plaintiff's side, but the intervenor refused to compromise with the plaintiff's four students and their parents, stating that "I would cancel the criminal complaint if I prepared a statement that he/she moved to the direction of the professor No. 9 professors."

On October 31, 2008, an intervenor filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the reduction of salary for one month with the Seoul Administrative Court. On October 30, 2008, the prosecutor filed a complaint with the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office to the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office on December 2008, against all eight defendants who are the defendant on October 30, 2008.

On June 4, 2009, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a decision to revoke the disciplinary action for one month of salary reduction on the grounds that “only the grounds for the disciplinary action are recognized and the remaining grounds for the disciplinary action are not recognized.” This decision became final and conclusive on April 21, 2010 as both appeals and appeals are dismissed.

6) Prosecution against Nonparty 9 and 5

The Prosecutor re-investigationd Nonparty 9 and 5, and prosecuted him as a violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) (hereinafter “Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.”), and the Intervenor withdrawn the criminal complaint against Nonparty 5 on November 25, 2009. On February 23, 2011, Nonparty 9 was rendered a judgment of conviction for the assault at the Seoul Northern District Court on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to prove the remainder of the facts charged, and both the Prosecutor’s appeal and appeal were dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 8, 11, 12 (including provisional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1, Eul evidence Nos. 18-2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2-2, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 14-1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 14-1 through 6, non-party Nos. 14-6's testimony, non-party No. 11's witness of the court of first instance, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts of recognition and the following circumstances revealed, it is reasonable to view that the participant’s refusal to resolve the problem through a smooth conversation with the parents who filed a criminal complaint against five students, etc., and spread to the press, and against them constitutes “when he/she, regardless of whether he/she is inside or outside the scope of duties, thereby impairing his/her dignity as a teacher” under Article 61(1)3 of the Private School Act. The Plaintiff’s assertion is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is groundless.

① A university professor, such as an intervenor, has a duty to constantly study and educate students in a university and have a mature personality and personality by guiding and educating students and educating them, and is socially respected in the trust of proper performance of such duties. As such, even if there arises a conflict between the students in the university and the students in question, even if the conflict between the students in question arises and the students in the university, it is reasonable to view that even if the conflict arises, prior to the educational point of view, it is difficult to find a cause of conflict and find a solution that does not lead to the future of the students through guidance and education of the students in question, dialogue and understanding, tolerance and tolerance. However, in the sense of responsibility that an intervenor should have as a university professor, it is reasonable to deem that the intervenor did not make any serious effort to resolve the conflict between the students in the university and the students in question, and that it is difficult to expect the social or social responsibility of selecting out of the school to lead such conflict to criminal complaint.

② Furthermore, even in the position where five students, etc. are required to attend the Intervenor’s course or to assist university professors, there was an error that they would be a disadvantage that may follow the posting act of this case in order to escape from strong dissatisfactions, sense of brush and apprehensions about the contents and methods of the Intervenor’s contents and methods of the Intervenor’s class, and to escape from the fears about the future. Although the Intervenor was a university professor in this case, he did not comply with this part of the judgment, and did not comply with this part of the judgment.

③ Furthermore, in fact, the Intervenor measured the size of the clothes of female students, and the husband took the actions of posting a notice from the PC room by body fighting, etc., and the husband appears to have been supported by pictures, etc. that the Intervenor personally diverted his will and budget, and the key contents of the posting act in this case are based on facts or evidence. Furthermore, the fact that there are strong complaints such as the content and method of the class of university professors and expressed the intention to demand correction as a group of the university professors, even if there is a strong exaggeration or false fact in the contents of the class, it can be sufficiently known if it is a university professor, or that there was a responsibility to sufficiently confirm the establishment of the offense prior to criminal complaint. Nevertheless, it seems that the intervenor did not pay attention to confirm the establishment of the offense prior to filing a criminal complaint due to defamation by five false facts such as the student.

④ There was no objective or reasonable ground to determine that five students, including the attending the instant case, were posted under any instruction or teachers of Nonparty 9, and the illegality of the first disciplinary action is sufficient to be disclosed through the examination of an appeal and administrative litigation, and furthermore, there is no inevitable circumstance to file a criminal complaint against five students, including the attending the instant case. In light of such circumstances, it is sufficient to deem that the intervenor filed a criminal complaint in order to bring about legal disputes with respect to the first disciplinary action against him/her, not to protect himself/herself from defamation caused by the posting of the instant case or to appeal the illegality of the first disciplinary action against him/her. In light of the foregoing circumstances, it is sufficient to deem that the intervenor committed a criminal complaint against the student who raised the issue of quality and class that he/she should carry as university professors, or to have pressure, on emotional or social and emotional basis, five students

⑤ Even if the Intervenor made a criminal complaint based on the erroneous determination that five students, such as the attending school, received certain shares from Nonparty 9 professors and filed a criminal complaint, it seems that the Intervenor did not go against the position of faculty members who will have been sexually in order to protect the students first of all, by filing a criminal complaint. In light of the fact that the Intervenor, upon receiving a proposal from the parents of the Plaintiff and four students to resolve the problem through reasonable dialogue and withdraw criminal complaint, demanded them to prepare and change a false statement of false facts that “the Intervenor had received teachers from Nonparty 9 professors and posted the case in this case.”

6) However, in light of the fact that the Intervenor filed a criminal complaint and did not reach a settlement with the Plaintiff’s recommendation, the mere fact that the Intervenor did not do so is insufficient to recognize that the Intervenor’s dignity as a teacher was damaged, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. In light of the following: (a) Nonparty 9 was convicted of the crime of assault; (b) Nonparty 9 was convicted of the crime of assault; and (c) Nonparty 5 was prosecuted for a violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation); and (d) Nonparty 5 was partly involved in the posting act of this case, even though there was no obvious reason to intervene in the conflict between the university professors and the students; and (b) Nonparty 5 was partly involved in the posting act of this case, solely on the basis that the Intervenor did not file a criminal complaint and did not make such a settlement with the Plaintiff.

D. Sub-determination

Although the part concerning five students, etc. among the grounds for disciplinary action of this case is recognized, the Defendant’s revocation of dismissal of this case is unlawful on the ground that the whole grounds for disciplinary action of this case is not recognized, and thus, the disposition of this case must be revoked (if such determination becomes final and conclusive, the Defendant should review whether the disciplinary action of the dismissal of this case is appropriate

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. However, since the judgment of the first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is revoked and the disposition of this case is revoked on the grounds of the

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Ansan-jin (Presiding Judge)