2. The costs of lawsuit, including the part resulting from the participation in the lawsuit, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who was appointed as a full-time lecturer with the department of artificial intelligence at C University on March 1, 1997 and served as a computer department or associate professor from March 1, 2005.

The Intervenor in the Defendant Litigation (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a school juristic person operating the C University.

The plaintiff recommended D and E students to be selected as scholarship subjects for the purpose of using them as club activity expenses, etc., and demanded the scholarship received by students as club membership fees.

(hereinafter referred to as "the first disciplinary ground"). The Plaintiff designated and managed the password of the official passbook in Dong-ri.

(hereinafter “Grounds for Disciplinary Action 2”). The sn beam project ( April 22, 2015) and CNC NC NC’s Project Group ( June 3, 2015) were purchased without agreement or consent with the students of Eastia by withdrawing the money deposited in the Dongi’s official account.

(hereinafter “Grounds for Disciplinary Action 3”) In 2015, the Plaintiff requested D students to obtain personal information, such as resident registration numbers and office addresses by telephone in order to register D students as research assistants in the single project, and ordered D students to sign to register as research assistants of the research task (the single project in 2015) without detailed explanation.

(hereinafter “Grounds for Disciplinary Action 4.” The Plaintiff directly withdrawn KRW 20,000 out of KRW 50,000,000,000,000 for D’s personnel expenses, which are research assistants of F projects, and directly withdraw KRW 4,330,00,00 among D’s personnel expenses (9,000,000), which are research assistants of G projects.

(hereinafter referred to as "grounds for disciplinary action"). (b)

On May 4, 2016, an intervenor dismissed the plaintiff for the following reasons.

C. On June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Defendant, and the Defendant, even though the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff were recognized, was changed to three months of the suspension from office on the ground that he/she abused or abused the discretionary power due to excessive disciplinary action.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). [This case’s ground for recognition] does not dispute, Gap evidence 1, and Eul 1 to 1.