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

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

A. On February 21, 2008, the parties’ relations (1) C University is authorized by the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development as a lifelong educational establishment that is recognized as having the academic background and degree equivalent to junior colleges pursuant to Article 31 of the Lifelong Education Act, and the Defendant is a legal entity that operates C University.

(2) On March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff was appointed as an assistant professor with music major in the music department of C University for two years, and was reappointed on March 1, 2013 for two years.

B. (1) On March 1, 2015, the Plaintiff was reappointed for two years again (from March 1, 2015 to February 28, 2017). However, on August 31, 2016, the Defendant requested the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee to decide on the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action, and the president of Cuniversity notified the Plaintiff of his dismissal from position on September 1, 2016 on the ground that the resolution on the resolution was required.

(2) The teachers’ disciplinary committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff from the assistant professor of Cuniversity, and the Defendant’s chief director notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was dismissed from the assistant professor of the instant university as of October 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

(3) The grounds for the dismissal of the instant case consisting of four reasons for Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 8, 11, 14, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 23, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Organization of the issues;

A. The basic issue of the instant dismissal is the validity of the instant dismissal.

The Plaintiff asserts that the procedural, substantive, and disciplinary action for the dismissal of the instant case are problematic and invalid, and claims the wages that were not received due to the dismissal of the instant case (2.3 million won per month from November 1, 2016 after the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement).

(The plaintiff filed a claim for wages which were not received due to the removal from position, claiming that the removal from position is invalid in the first instance court, but this court withdrawn the claim and reduced the claim.