2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff and Ga.

A. The defendant employs 150 full-time workers as a corporation whose purpose is to operate a private teaching institute business such as C University.

Since the Plaintiff was newly appointed to the Defendant corporation on July 24, 1996, the Plaintiff had been in general service Grade III at C University Library.

B. On January 18, 2013, the Defendant held an employee disciplinary committee to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that: (i) absence from office and absence from office without permission; (ii) refusal to comply with personnel orders and performance of duties; (iii) unauthorized travel; (iv) non-payment of the vehicle for university business; and (v) refusal to receive postal items were the grounds for disciplinary action; and accordingly, the Defendant’s chief director dismissed the Plaintiff on January 29, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for confirmation of invalidity of removal from office

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff filed an application for challenge against all seven disciplinary members of the above Staff Disciplinary Committee, and filed an application for challenge against six of them based on common causes. However, the disciplinary committee members in receipt of the application for challenge participated in the resolution for challenge against the disciplinary committee members who received the application for challenge due to common causes with the Plaintiff.

This constitutes a serious defect in the procedure of the challenge resolution, and thus the disciplinary action against the plaintiff is not effective.

B) The Plaintiff was absent from office without permission or did not leave the workplace without permission, and there are no other grounds for the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff. (C) Even if some of the grounds for the disciplinary action is recognized, the Defendant’s dismissal, the most serious disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, is unreasonable as it deviates from and abused the right to discretion on disciplinary action.

2) The defendant's assertion A) The purpose of the plaintiff's motion for challenge is to escape from disciplinary action by delaying or drinking the disciplinary procedure only, which constitutes abuse of the challenge system.

Therefore, corresponding.