[2] In a case where the author cites another’s writing without indicating the source of the work, and thus it is considerably difficult for the author to distinguish between the author’s literary work and that of another’s literary work. In a case where the author comprehensively and comprehensively expresses the author’s literary work from the part other than the main text of the document, reference document, etc., whether the author’s perception and intent to plagiarism is inferred (affirmative in principle) / Whether the author’s perception and intent to plagiarism is denied solely on the ground that the author consented to the other’s literary work without indicating the source of origin (negative)

[3] The case where the so-called “self-plagiarism” can be evaluated as a research misconduct equivalent to non-plagiarism or plagiarism

[4] Whether plagiarism should be determined according to the research ethics at the time of the preparation of a work, in cases where there is time interval between the time of preparation and the time of determination of plagiarism (affirmative in principle)

[5] In a case where a separate legal relationship is formed based on the thesis’s plagiarism and a dispute over the legal relationship becomes subject to judicial review, whether the court has the ultimate authority to determine whether the thesis’s plagiarism has been established (affirmative), and the method of examining whether the thesis was plagiarism

[6] Whether an act of replacing an original copy of a thesis is permissible by submitting the final copy of the thesis after the examination of a doctoral degree thesis was completed, and a doctoral degree thesis was presented to the institution that received the doctoral degree and submitting the original copy of the thesis to the institution that received the doctoral degree (negative), and whether the same applies to a case where an original copy of a doctoral degree thesis, which was omitted in the cited part of

[7] Requirements for recognizing the legitimacy of dismissal, and whether the same applies to dismissal of a worker on the ground that there is a defect in research misconduct, such as plagiarism, in the thesis of a degree, where the worker demanded that the worker be a holder of a degree above a certain level as the conditions for employment of workers and submitted a thesis of a degree (affirmative)

[2] Even in cases where the author’s work has been cited without an appropriate quotation, it cannot be deemed that the author had a perception or intent to plagiarism other than the author’s work. However, in a case where the author cited another’s work without an indication of the source of the work and the part difficult to distinguish between the author’s work and that of another’s work is considerable enough, barring special circumstances, the author’s perception and intent to cite another’s work is inferred, barring special circumstances, and even if the author indicated the other’s work comprehensively and comprehensively on a comprehensive basis other than the main text, such as writing or reference document, etc., the author’s perception and intent to cite the other’s work, and the fact that the author followed the previous practice cannot be exempted from liability solely because plagiarism of the author’s work interferes with the normal verification of academic circles, preventing the plagiarism of creative research and development by preventing the plagiarism from being plagiarism. Thus, not only the author of the work, but also the reader, examination institution, institution affiliated with the author, and academic circles, etc.

[3] The author’s use of part of his previous works in the course of the advancement and development of learning and ideas is reasonable in light of the nature of the academic field. When the author expresses the existence of his previous works as sources by using his previous works, the level of indication of sources required compared with the case of citing another’s works shall be mitigated. However, when the author does not disclose the existence of his previous works as if the part of his previous works is the research outcomes of the subsequent works, the academic circles and readers are able to make the previous works only as if they were the research outcomes of the subsequent works, thereby making it difficult for the author to properly verify the existence of the subsequent works. Even if the author expresses the existence of his previous works through the display of sources by using his previous works, if the parts newly added in the subsequent works do not have originality or are difficult to be recognized as new works, the author’s expectation of the subsequent works recognized as a new work as plagiarism can be evaluated as one of the so-called “self-plagiarism” or “self-plagiarism.

[4] plagiarism should be determined according to the research ethics at the time of the preparation of a work, unless there are special circumstances, where there exists a time interval between the time of preparation and the time of determination of plagiarism. Research ethics refers to the standards that researchers should abide by based on social norms and academic perceptions, etc., and is not necessarily confined to the regulations on research ethics of sexual plagiarism. Even if a researcher performs such act prior to the introduction of a provision deeming a specific act as plagiarism in the regulations on research ethics of sexual plagiarism, such act alone cannot be deemed plagiarism.

[5] If the issue of plagiarism arises when a specific thesis is an issue of whether it is plagiarism, the relevant academic field independently determines the plagiarism of the thesis. However, if a separate legal relationship is formed due to the cause of plagiarism and legal relationship is disputed, and thus becomes subject to judicial review, the court has the ultimate authority to determine the plagiarism of the thesis. Thus, the court is not bound by the determination of plagiarism of the author’s affiliated organizations, thesis review organizations, academic societies, etc., but must examine the plagiarism in a reasonable way. However, it is necessary to refer to the opinions of experts in the relevant academic field.

[6] In light of the main text and purport of Article 35(2) of the Higher Education Act, Article 44 and Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, a person who intends to obtain a doctorate is bound to prepare a copy of the thesis and submit it again to the examiners in the process of providing guidance on the thesis and supplementing errors by examiners in the process of examining the thesis. However, once the examination of the thesis is completed and the doctor’s degree is granted, a person who submitted a final copy of the thesis and submitted a doctor’s degree after the completion of the examination of the thesis, which does not affect the contents of the thesis and its verification, is not allowed to submit an original copy of the thesis to the conferment institution, etc., and replace the original copy of the thesis with the original doctor’s degree paper. The same applies to cases where a person intends to newly add the source indication omitted from the cited part of the previous work.

[7] Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act limits dismissal of an employee by stipulating that an employer shall not be dismissed without any justifiable reason. Thus, even if the grounds for dismissal are recognized, the validity of dismissal is recognized only when there are reasons attributable to an employee to the extent that the employee is not able to continue to maintain an employment relationship by social norms. This also applies to the dismissal of an employee on the ground that research misconduct, such as plagiarism, exists in the thesis of a degree, in the event that an employee submitted a thesis with a certain degree of degree. The degree of non-existence of employment relationship by social norms should be determined not only by the circumstances at the time of employment, such as the degree of research misconduct based on the entire thesis of the degree, the degree of the employer’s failure to continue to maintain an employment relationship between the employer and the employee, but also by the employer’s failure to enter into an employment contract or enter into an employment contract on the same condition, but also by taking into account the following factors as a whole: (a) details and period of his/her work performed by the employee after dismissal to the dismissal; (b) whether the defect in this may interfere with the degree.

The purpose of the State-designated Research Institute’s submission of a doctor’s degree thesis is to secure data to determine the authenticity, honestness, and adaptation to the research environment as well as research capacity and expertise in the relevant field, as well as to ensure the formation of mutual trust and the maintenance of a stable research environment, etc. as well as to conclude employment contracts and maintain employment relationship. Therefore, in the case where the employment contract or personnel management regulations specifically stipulate the causes for dismissal when there is any illegality or defect in the thesis submitted by the researcher at the time of employment as grounds for dismissal, dismissal for this reason is justifiable unless it is significantly unfair under social norms in light of the overall circumstances after employment and circumstances after employment.

1. As to the ground of appeal on whether the grounds of dismissal of this case constitutes “when any defect or illegality is discovered in the documents submitted at the time of appointment”

A. First, we examine the criteria for determining plagiarism.

(1) An act of using another person’s work or original idea, which is not a general knowledge in the pertinent field, as one of the research misconduct, without indicating the source, constitutes typical plagiarism. Although there may be differences in the degree of indication of source required by the nature or academic field of the relevant work, the indication of source ought to be based on the reasonable method deemed reasonable depending on the situation in which the work is used (see Article 37 of the Copyright Act). In cases of citing a translation of foreign literature directly in one’s work, the relevant foreign literature shall be indicated as the source. In cases of citing a translation of foreign literature, the said foreign literature shall be indicated as the original address and translation as the secondary source. In principle, the other person bears the duty to indicate the source when citing a part of the prior work, which is the author’s public book, and even in cases where the author’s public book falls under compilation or combined work, if citing another author’s work beyond his/her own written work, the said foreign literature shall be indicated as the secondary source.

Even in cases where other person’s literary work has been cited without an appropriate quotation for the author’s literary work, it cannot be deemed that the author had perceived or intent to plagiarism that other person’s literary work had been committed. However, in a case where the author cited another’s literary work without an indication of source, and the part that was difficult to distinguish between the author’s literary work and that of other person’s literary work is considerable enough, barring special circumstances, even if the author indicated the other person’s literary work comprehensively and comprehensively in the part other than the main text, such as the writing or reference literature, the perception and intent to plagiarism as one’s own will should be presumed to have been inferred, barring special circumstances. The mere fact that the author followed the previous practice does not necessarily mean that the plagiarism of the author’s literary work is insufficient. plagiarism of the author’s literary work interferes with the academic world’s normal verification and prevents the plagiarism from spreading of creative research and development, and is widely seen not only in the plagiarism but also in the reader, the institution to which the author belongs, and academic circles, etc.

(2) The author’s use of part of his previous works in the course of the advancement and development of learning and ideas is reasonable in view of the nature of the academic field. When the author expresses the existence of his previous works as the source by using his previous works, it may be deemed that the level of indication of sources required compared with the case of citing another’s works is mitigated. However, where the existence of his previous works is not disclosed, the portion of his previous works shall be deemed as the research performance of the subsequent works, and the research achievement of the subsequent works shall be deemed as having been sufficiently recorded by academic circles, readers, etc., and the subsequent works shall not be properly verified. Even if the author expresses the existence of his previous works by using his previous works, even if he expresses the existence of a new work with a certain source display, it shall be deemed that the reader expectation of the subsequent works recognized as a new work in the relevant field without any contribution to the relevant academic field.

In such cases, all of the so-called “self-plagiarism” can be evaluated as a research misconduct equivalent to non-marological plagiarism or other plagiarism.

(3) plagiarism should be determined depending on the research ethics at the time of the preparation of the work, unless there are special circumstances, where there exists a time interval between the time of preparation of the work at issue of plagiarism and the time of determination of plagiarism. The research ethics refers to the general and ordinary standards that researchers should observe based on social norms or academic perceptions, etc., and is not necessarily confined to the regulations on research ethics of sexual plagiarism. Even if a researcher committed such act before the introduction of a provision regarding a specific act as plagiarism in the regulations on research ethics of sexual plagiarism, such act alone cannot be deemed plagiarism.

(4) If the issue of plagiarism arises in the context of a specific thesis, it should be determined independently in the relevant academic field. However, if a separate legal relationship is formed due to plagiarism and legal relationship is disputed, and thus becomes subject to judicial review, the court has the ultimate authority to determine plagiarism of the relevant thesis. Thus, the court is required to review whether plagiarism is conducted in a reasonable way without being bound by the determination of plagiarism of the author’s affiliated organizations, thesis review organizations, academic societies, etc., and to refer to the opinions of experts in the relevant field.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that ① the Defendant, an affiliated organization of the National Land Research Institute, as a government-funded research institute, was employed as an associate researcher on February 1, 2010, and indicated a doctorate thesis as the documents to be submitted. ② The Plaintiff, upon obtaining a doctorate from ○ University on or around June 2009, submitted the “(the title omitted)” recognized as a doctorate thesis (hereinafter “the instant thesis”) and decided to be employed in braille on March 8, 2010, and entered into an employment contract with the Defendant on March 8, 2010; ③ Article 5 of the employment contract signed at the time of appointment provides that “when any defects are discovered or changes are discovered in all documents submitted by the appointed person at the time of appointment contract after the appointment contract,” and acknowledged the Plaintiff’s appointment contract as the grounds for termination of employment contract with the Defendant’s employment contract with Nonparty 2 without permission for the purpose of concealing Nonparty 1’s original documents.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that the entire paper of this case does not constitute plagiarism solely on the ground that, although part of the paper of this case overlaps with the Plaintiff’s master’s degree thesis and its contents on the author of this case, there is a new subject different from the Plaintiff’s master’s degree thesis, the Plaintiff’s comprehensive and general source source indication cannot be sufficient, but it does not seem to have been intended to appropriate another’s work to the Plaintiff. Nonparty 1 asserted that Nonparty 1 participated in the Plaintiff’s work in his author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s work contains.

C. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following.

(1) At the time of July 2006, prior to the drawing up of the instant thesis, discussions on self-plagiarism and duplication publication began to be discussed in academic circles in full-time in the process of verifying the appointment of high-ranking public officials from academic circles. “Research on policy measures for establishing research ethics” enacted on April 23, 2007 by the Korea Science Promotion Foundation, along with “where a person expresses his own opinion without citing the content and expressions of another’s thesis or author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s paper’s author’s paper’s author’s paper’s author’s paper’s paper’s paper’s author’s own paper’s paper’s paper’ or paper’s original paper’s paper’.

Article 4(1)3 of the Regulations on the Verification and Disposal of the Truth of Research Ethics of ○○ University, which was enforced on November 10, 206, provides that “any act of stealing another’s idea, content of research, results, etc. without legitimate approval or quotation” as a type of research misconduct under Article 4(1)3. Although there was no direct provision on self-defense, Article 4(2)5 of the Regulations provided “any act of seriously deviating from the scope of research ethics applicable to the relevant research field” as a type of research misconduct under Article 4(2)5 of the same Act. In addition, “the Guidelines for Securing Research Ethics”, which was partially amended and implemented on July 28, 2008, partially amended and implemented, “the Guidelines for Securing Research Ethics,” under Article 4(1)3 of the same Regulations, “the act of stealing another’s idea, content, result, etc. without justifiable approval or quotation,” and even though the said provision prescribed “the provisions of self-defense in subparagraph 6 of the same paragraph as a serious act of science and technology.”

(2) The Plaintiff stated Nonparty 1’s written author’s written author’s written author’s written author’s and thesis’s written author’s written author’s written paper and written paper’s written author’s written author’s written author’s written paper. However, the main text cited Nonparty 1’s written author’s written author’s written paper without indicating source. The cited part was mostly cited in the part related to a factual process, but part of the cited part was partly cited.

The research report of ○○ University, which judged plagiarism of the instant thesis, stated that “The contents and drawings described without the quotation of the author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author

(3) In Chapters 3 and 4, this paper cited a substantial portion of the Plaintiff’s master’s degree thesis. Of the main text of this paper, the part which cited a master’s degree thesis without indicating source is 170. Among them, the part which cited a master’s degree thesis without indicating source is included not only in the main text of this paper, but also in the factual, general contents, and analysis and analysis chart. However, the existence of a master’s degree thesis is not indicated as well as in the main text of this paper.

D. We examine these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

(1) In light of the research ethics at the time of the preparation of the instant thesis, even though there may be somewhat differences in the degree of the required source indication, an act of citing another’s literary work (including translation and human use of foreign literature) without indicating the source indication in a considerable amount of time constitutes plagiarism as a research misconduct, and there may be no clear standards as to how to indicate the existence and cited parts of his previous thesis. However, an act of citing another’s literary work in a subsequent thesis without expressing the existence of his previous thesis itself constitutes a research misconduct and can be deemed as falling under the self-mark.

(2) As to the part accepting Nonparty 1’s written author in this case’s thesis, it is comprehensively and comprehensively indicated Nonparty 1’s written author except in the main text of “Research Method” or “Reference Documents.” However, even though Nonparty 1’s written author cited in the thesis of this case, and the Plaintiff’s author’s written author was cited in the main text, and it has considerable degree of difficulty in distinguishing the Plaintiff’s written author and Nonparty 1’s written author without indicating the source. In light of research ethics at the time of the preparation of the thesis of this case, it can be deemed that Nonparty 1’s written author without indicating the source. In full view of the relationship between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff is presumed to have expressed Nonparty 1’s written work and had the Plaintiff’s perception and intent to see himself.

Of the thesis of this case, plagiarism is established in the part that cited Nonparty 1’s prior works without indicating the source. Even if Nonparty 1 consented thereto, it does not affect the establishment of plagiarism. Even if Nonparty 1’s author’s author’s author quoted in the thesis of this case were the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1’s author’s author’s author, it does not affect the establishment of plagiarism in light of the cited part and degree. This constitutes “when the document submitted at the time of appointment is found in error and illegality.”

(3) As to the part cited the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s degree thesis among the thesis of this case, since the existence of the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s degree thesis is not revealed, in light of the research ethics at the time of the preparation of the thesis of this case, it should be viewed as “self-plagiarism” and “research misconduct equivalent to plagiarism.” This constitutes “when the document submitted at the time of appointment is discovered as defective or unjust.”

(4) Even according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the part cited by the author of this case among the author of this case is not specified. Thus, the lower court seems to have determined that the part cited by the author of this case without indicating the source of this case, which was cited in the main text without indicating the source of this case, constitutes plagiarism in the part where the author of this case’s work was cited by the author of this case, and if there was re-alination as to the domestic documents, etc. which translated the author of this case’s work in the process of plagiarism, it would be sufficient to examine whether it constitutes plagiarism in the part where the author of this case’s work was cited by the author of this case’s work, and whether it constitutes “when the defect or illegality was discovered in the documents submitted at the time of appointment” in this case’s thesis. However, it is sufficient to deem that the aforementioned part of this case’s thesis constituted “when the defect or illegality was discovered in the documents submitted

E. Nevertheless, without properly examining the above circumstances, the lower court determined that the mere fact that there is a suspected part of plagiarism or duplicate publication in part of the thesis of this case for the reasons indicated in its reasoning does not constitute “when the documents submitted at the time of appointment are found to be defective or unjust.” In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending relevant legal principles, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit.

2. As to the ground of appeal on whether the instant ground of dismissal constitutes “when the content of the documents submitted at the time of appointment is modified”

A. Comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) upon the Plaintiff’s filing of suspicion of plagiarism regarding the instant thesis, the Plaintiff added 60 reference documents and quoted marks to Nonparty 1’s proposal at the time of appointment as a guidance professor of the instant thesis; and (b) replaced the revised dissertation with the instant thesis by submitting ○ University Library, the National Library, and the National Assembly Library on April 16, 2012 (hereinafter “instant revised thesis”); and (c) the Plaintiff used Nonparty 1’s stamp as it was written around June 2009, when acquiring a doctor’s degree in the process of replacing the thesis; (d) Nonparty 1 obtained the prior consent of three examiners of another thesis through Nonparty 2, who were residing in the U.S. at the time of examination; and (e) acknowledged that the amendment of Article 5 of the amended employment relationship to the terms and conditions of the instant paper constitutes grounds for termination of the contract, and thus, it was difficult to view that the amendment of the terms and conditions of the employment agreement was made.

(b) A person who intends to obtain a master’s degree or a doctor’s degree in the relevant course from a graduate school (Article 35(2) of the Higher Education Act), and a person who intends to obtain a master’s degree or a doctor’s degree from a graduate school shall obtain required credits, pass certain examinations, and submit a thesis of a degree (Article 44(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act), the examination of a thesis of a degree is conducted by examiners (at least three persons for a master’s degree, at least five persons for a doctor’s degree, and at least five persons for a doctor’s degree) selected through deliberation by the University Committee from among teachers or authorities of the academic community (Article 44(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), and a person who obtains a doctor’s degree from a graduate school shall publish a thesis of a doctor’s degree within one year from

In light of the contents and purport of the aforementioned relevant provisions, it is natural for a person who intends to obtain a doctorate to prepare an original copy of the thesis and submit it again to examiners at the stage of the examination procedure for a doctor’s degree thesis. On the other hand, after the examination of this paper is completed, the final copy of the thesis is submitted and the doctor’s degree is granted. On the other hand, even if the correction of misunderstanding/s who did not affect the contents of the thesis or its verification is permissible, it is not allowed to submit an original copy of the doctor’s degree paper to the institution holding the degree of doctor’s degree and replace it with the original doctor’s degree. This also applies where a person intends to newly add an original copy of the paper omitted from the cited part of the previous author’s degree of doctor’s degree in this case’s degree of doctor’s degree. Since the Plaintiff’s act of adding 60 points omitted from the original author’s degree of doctor’s degree, it cannot be deemed that the previous correction of misunderstanding/s of the author’s title of this case’s thesis cannot be seen as it did not affect the previous author’s appearance.

However, even if there was the replacement of this paper, the author still has the legal meaning as the thesis corresponding to the Plaintiff’s doctor’s degree before adding 60 points to the source indication, and the amendment paper of this case submitted to ○ University Library, etc. is physically existing as the product of an act not permitted for research ethics, and finally, the subject of determination of plagiarism is not the thesis of this case. In light of the above, even if there was the replacement of a thesis not permitted for research ethics, it cannot be deemed that the content of the thesis of this case was changed by such act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s act of submitting the revised thesis of this case and replacing it with the thesis of this case can be considered factors for determination of “when any defect or illegality is discovered in the documents submitted at the time of appointment” or justifiable reasons for dismissal, which is the ground for dismissal. However, it is difficult to view that the content of the documents submitted by the appointed party constitutes “when the contents of the documents are changed.”

C. Although this part of the judgment of the court below is not sufficient in its reasoning, it is just to determine that the plaintiff's act does not constitute "when the contents of the documents submitted by the appointed person are changed," which is the ground for dismissal, and it does not constitute "when the contents of the documents submitted by the appointed person are changed."

3. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal as to the dismissal of the instant case

A. Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act limits dismissal of an employee by stipulating that an employer shall not be dismissed without justifiable cause. Thus, the legitimacy of dismissal is recognized only when the ground for dismissal is attributable to an employee to the extent that the employee cannot continue to engage in an employment relationship by social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu18189, Nov. 10, 1998). This also applies when an employee requests, under the terms of employment of an employee, the holder of a degree above a certain level of degree and submits a thesis in this connection, the employee is dismissed on the ground that there is a defect in research misconduct, such as plagiarism, etc. in the thesis. The degree of non-existence of employment relationship under social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the circumstances at the time of employment, such as the degree and duration of research misconduct based on the entire thesis, if the employer had known such defect in the thesis, but also would not enter into an employment contract or at least the same condition after the dismissal, but also would hinder the employee’s stable management and order.

The purpose of a national book-based research institute’s submission of a doctor’s degree thesis is to secure data to determine the authenticity, suspension of duty, adaptation to the research environment as well as research ability and expertise in the relevant field, and further to promote the formation of mutual trust and the maintenance of a stable research environment, etc. as well as to enter into an employment contract and maintain employment relationship. Therefore, in a case where the pertinent research institute’s employment contract or personnel management regulations expressly specifies the grounds for dismissal as grounds for dismissal when there is any illegality or defect in the thesis submitted by the pertinent research institute at the time of employment, dismissal for that reason should be justified unless it is significantly unfair under social norms in light of the overall circumstances at the time of employment and thereafter (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16763, Jul. 5, 2012).

B. In this case, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s writing of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1’s master’s book and the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s book were defective without indicating source in the instant thesis submitted in the process of being employed as the Defendant’s father’s side researcher. plagiarism was established in the part that cited Nonparty 1’s written author without indicating source. Of the instant thesis, the part that cited the Plaintiff’s master’s book without indicating source constitutes “when the documents submitted at the time of appointment contract are discovered,” which is the ground for dismissal.

Furthermore, the following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the judgment below and records are as follows: ① Of the thesis of this case, the part which cited Nonparty 1’s author’s master’s degree and the Plaintiff’s master’s degree thesis without indicating source is included in the contents. ② The Defendant’s demand for a doctor’s degree thesis with documents submitted by associate researchers is not simply to confirm the fact of awarding a degree, but to examine whether the Plaintiff has research ability and expertise corresponding thereto. Since the thesis of this case had no particular career other than the Plaintiff’s doctor’s degree holder at the time of the recruitment examination, it is deemed that the Defendant would not conclude an employment contract with the Plaintiff or did not enter into an employment contract with the same condition if the Defendant knew of the defect in the thesis of this case, and ③ the Plaintiff’s research report was published during the period of acting as the head of the center of the Construction City Information Center under the Defendant’s employment with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s plagiarism did not have an adverse effect on the Plaintiff’s work as a research institute after the appointment of the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1’s research paper of this case.

C. Nevertheless, the court below did not properly consider such circumstances and determined that there is no justifiable reason for dismissal for the reasons as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the relevant legal principles and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)