박사학위논문표절처분무효확인의소
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 24, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained a doctorate from the graduate school of B University as a thesis of “C” (hereinafter “the thesis of this case”).
B. On May 1, 2015, the Defendant obtained a doctor’s degree from an anonymous civil petitioner by plagiarism a master’s degree thesis (E; hereinafter “D thesis”) and received a postal item that requires the Plaintiff to take legitimate measures, such as cancelling the Plaintiff’s doctor’s degree obtained by unlawful means. The Defendant received the information from the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission on May 28, 2015 on the same content as the above civil petition.
C. On June 18, 2015, B University Graduate School Committee (hereinafter “ Graduate School Committee”) decided to organize a subcommittee for investigating the plagiarism of the instant thesis. Accordingly, the subcommittee organized therefrom decided that “the similarity analysis of the data of each thesis on July 1, 2015 and July 29, 2015,” and the Plaintiff’s explanatory materials, etc. were examined that “the data of the instant thesis and D thesis are substantially identical, and the composition and description of the two degrees are substantially identical.”
On August 27, 2015, the Graduate School Committee decided that “plagiarism” in relation to the instant thesis is “a serious level of plagiarism,” the experimental data and composition and describing contents of the instant thesis, which is the original thesis, and the thesis subject to verification, provided guidance to the Plaintiff on the determination results and objection procedures, and, if there is no objection, submitted it to the graduate School Committee for deliberation on whether to cancel the doctor’s degree.”
E. According to such determination, on August 31, 2015, the Defendant: (a) included the content that “the content of the instant thesis’s experimental data, composition, and description was seriously examined; and (b) the method of raising an objection,” and (c) included the method of raising an objection against the Plaintiff.