2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Plaintiff is a school corporation that establishes and operates the C University (hereinafter “C University”).

The defendant, the chief executive officer of the plaintiff corporation, is E's Dong-in, the third president, and was newly appointed on July 24, 1996 as the representative of the secretary general, and was promoted to Grade III in general service on July 1, 2004 and performed the duties of the chief of the planning office.

From March 1, 2007, the defendant, who was issued a transfer order to work as a library head, was dissatisfied with the personnel affairs, and tried to remove gasoline from the office of president and fire prevention by bringing it into the office of president. For this reason, the defendant was released from the office of library on October 1, 2007.

The plaintiff kept the defendant in a waiting position by July 30, 2008, while maintaining the class of class 3 in general service from August 1, 2008 and assigned him as a library employee.

B. On January 18, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) held a disciplinary committee against the Defendant; (b) decided to dismiss the Defendant on the ground of absence from office and absence from office without permission; (c) failure to comply with personnel orders and to perform duties; (d) failure to pay back the vehicle for university business; and (e) refusal to receive postal items; and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s president removed the Defendant on January 29, 2013.

C. On January 17, 2014, the Defendant, against the Plaintiff’s removal disposition, filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal against the validity of the removal disposition (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gahap2988). On October 2, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment that the removal disposition was null and void on the ground that there was procedural defect in the composition of the disciplinary committee, which made a resolution of removal against the Defendant.

However, on May 15, 2015, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014Na53259 case) held that the composition of the disciplinary committee is legitimate, and the grounds for disciplinary action against the defendant are also recognized, and that the removal disposition by the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have abused or exceeded the discretion of disciplinary action, and revoked the judgment of the first instance court and the defendant's decision.