2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Intervenor was appointed as a full-time lecturer at the Dong-ju University under the Plaintiff’s control in 1991 and served.

B. On January 2013, the Plaintiff rendered a decision as to B, a department affiliated with the Intervenor, as the Intervenor.

On December 30, 2014, an intervenor filed an application for the transition of major to the pertinent department with the consent of two professors from C and three professors, and held an interview related to the transition of major on January 22, 2014. However, on January 23, 2015, the intervenor received the answer that the transition of major is difficult due to the lack of the consent of all teachers, and filed an application for voluntary retirement on January 23, 2015.

C. On June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) on June 16, 2015, on the ground that the Intervenor was dismissed on the ground of the abolition of the disposition following the resolution of the second board of directors on June 16, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”). D.

On July 22, 2015, the Intervenor filed a petition review against the Plaintiff seeking revocation of the instant disposition of dismissal. On October 14, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the instant disposition of dismissal (hereinafter “instant decision”) on the ground that “A decision on the closure and decision itself with respect to the Intervenor B, who is a department affiliated with the Intervenor, is legitimate, but the refusal of the transition due to the lack of consent from all professors affiliated with the mobile department, cannot be deemed to have undergone an examination of avoidance of dismissal in accordance with objective and reasonable standards, and in the case of the closure of the department, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff constitutes the applicant for the honorary retirement separate from whether the voluntary retirement is recognized. However, the Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the application period for the voluntary retirement against the Intervenor is recognized as misunderstanding in the interpretation of the relevant provisions.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 20 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision of this case is legitimate

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s internal regulations on the restructuring of university development (hereinafter “Regulation on restructuring”).

§ 8.1.