1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On November 5, 2014, the Defendant dismissed the petition for review filed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 1, 2004, the Plaintiff was newly appointed to C University established and operated by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) and worked as a service management department or associate professor, and was in the same meaning as the Plaintiff’s new faculty member of IH I’s sexual intercourse. H of C University was in the same sense as J president, the Plaintiff, the professor of G (Nam), and the professor of K.

person is a person.

B. On July 25, 2014, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on the grounds of the grounds as delineated below.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant dismissal disposition”). With respect to a disciplinary action against which the Plaintiff asserted the false fact that his father-child’s father-child (FF) is a professor at the same school department, D, C, and B, the honor of D, C, and B, and violated the duty to maintain the dignity of teachers, the Plaintiff was disseminated to the general public by informing a superior institution of the fact that no specific and scientific grounds exist for the suspicion of the disciplinary action against the disciplinary action against the violation of the duty to maintain the dignity of teachers, on the grounds that the suspicion of the person subject to the disciplinary action was raised, regardless of the detention of the head of the agency based on objective grounds, the Plaintiff was spreading to the general public; the judgment of the International Inspector (E, hereinafter “Inspector”);

A) Even if the truth was investigated and received from D professor E’s father’s father and father’s father and wife were not GH’s children, it is confirmed that the person subject to disciplinary action continues to demand the withdrawal of personnel without taking follow-up measures (such as death, etc.) and that D suffered damage that is difficult to recover, and that the person subject to disciplinary action violates the duty of maintaining the dignity and obeying teachers as well as impairing D’s honor.

On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant dismissal disposition, but the Defendant rendered a decision of dismissal on November 5, 2014 on the ground that the instant dismissal was justifiable as follows:

(hereinafter, the defendant's dismissal decision is "the review and decision of this case"). (B)