2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

A. The Plaintiff is the president of A University. On March 1, 1995, the Intervenor joining the Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer at A University’s college, and was appointed as a professor at A University’s Department C Hospital affiliated with A University (hereinafter “instant hospital”) and was appointed as an associate professor on January 1, 1997, as an associate professor, as an associate professor on September 1, 1997, and as an associate professor on March 1, 2008.

B. On March 1, 2014, A University Medical Personnel enacted the Regulations on the Enforcement of the Concurrent Office of Medical Personnel and the Enforcement of the Regulations on the Enforcement of the Regulations on June 16, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant Enforcement Regulations”). The amended Enforcement Regulations on June 16, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant Enforcement Regulations”). The Plaintiff was selected as a person who is to be removed from the concurrent Office of Medical Personnel during the first half of the year 2015, but the Plaintiff was determined to be granted the first grace period, and was again selected as a person who is to be removed from the concurrent Office of Medical Personnel at the first half of the year 2016.

C. On January 9, 2017, the Teachers’ Personnel Committee of A University Medical Personnel Committee: An intervenor who is a father at the instant hospital and a clinical faculty member shall be cancelled to hold concurrent office concurrently.

On February 15, 2017, the president of A University passed a resolution on the proposal, and the director of A University shall not concurrently hold office and terminate the appointment of the Intervenor.

On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the termination of concurrent holding of office concurrently with the father of the instant hospital and the medical center (hereinafter “the termination of the instant case”) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the record of treatment under Article 5(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case.

On March 29, 2017, the Intervenor dissatisfied with the termination of the instant case and filed a petition review with the Defendant on March 29, 2017. On June 7, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the termination of the instant case on the ground that the termination of the instant case based on the illegal provision was illegal, since Article 5(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case was not recognized as being justifiable and appropriate of the purpose and means, and thus, it is unlawful to violate the principle of proportionality (hereinafter “instant decision”).

[Ground of recognition] A.