A. On March 1, 2012, Defendant Educational Foundation B (hereinafter “Defendant Educational Institute”) operating the E University (hereinafter “Defendant Educational Institute”) appointed Plaintiff as a full-time lecturer at the instant University on a one-year term of employment, with the Plaintiff as a full-time lecturer at the instant University on March 1, 2012, and the Plaintiff’s term of employment expired on February 28, 2013 as the Plaintiff refused to conclude a contract for reappointment with the Plaintiff.

B. Around March 13, 2013, around April 18, 2013, and around May 6, 2013, Defendant private teaching institute requested the Plaintiff to withdraw the Plaintiff’s personal right and wrong, and return the research keys. The Plaintiff responded to the purport that the Plaintiff cannot comply with the request for the delivery of the research institute, as it is expected to dispute the validity of the disposition of refusal of reappointment to the Defendant private teaching institute on March 19, 2013, around April 26, 2013, and May 10, 2013.

C. Defendant C, the vice president of the instant university, Defendant D, and the director of the school affairs division, were recruited to intrude the Plaintiff’s laboratory. From around 10:00 on June 8, 2013 to around 17:00 on the same day, the F and the staff G of the Department of Education, who were the vice president of the instant university, opened a lock-down entrance using Mark Turkey in the Plaintiff’s research institute located on the second floor of the First Arts Center of the instant university, and carried out corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff.

Defendant C, D, and F issued a summary order on October 2, 2014 to impose a fine of KRW 500,000 for each offense of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence) due to the act described in the aforesaid paragraph (c).

(G) The fact that there is no dispute over the Daegu District Court 2014 High Court 2014 High Court 13497. [Reasons for Recognition], each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2 and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that he left five points of the art works installed in the instant university laboratory that he had used. However, on June 8, 2013, the Defendants invaded into the Plaintiff’s laboratory and damaged the Plaintiff’s said art works without permission, and the Plaintiff at the time.