A. The parties concerned are school foundations established and operated under the Private School Act, and the Plaintiff is an associate professor in the management department of C University from September 2014.

D is a E University Research professor, and F is a person who serves as a C University Psychological Research Institute.

B. The Plaintiff’s publication process 1) On July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff published the instant thesis G (G; hereinafter “G”).

) The first author published the thesis of the title “H” by indicating the first author as F the Plaintiff, the third author, and the third author (hereinafter “the first author”) (hereinafter “the first author”). The thesis submitted at the time of the first publication is “the first thesis”).

(2) On May 22, 2017, G refused to publish the first thesis to the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff that “in the event that an interviewer revises the problems pointed out and re-announces the thesis, re-announces whether or not the thesis will be published.”

3) After the Plaintiff revised the first thesis with D along with D, on July 21, 2017, the Plaintiff re-enters the first author D and the first author as Plaintiff, excluding the author’s indication, into G. On December 12, 2017, the Plaintiff received a final decision on the final publication of the thesis (hereinafter “the second publication”) from G on December 12, 2017 (hereinafter “the second publication”). The thesis submitted at the time of the second publication was “final publication”, and the first thesis and the last publication were “the instant thesis” in the total publication.

(C) Around April 2018, F reported the Research Ethics Committee of the Defendant C University (hereinafter “Research Ethics Committee of this case”) to the effect that “F is sufficiently qualified to participate in the process of producing and analyzing questionnaires from the research design to the research design, but excluding F in the indication of author in the final thesis constitutes a research misconduct by improper omission.”

(hereinafter “instant information”). 2 The Research Ethics Committee of this case is F.