1. On December 21, 2016, the Defendant filed a request for revocation of dismissal (2016-477) between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of decision on the petition examination;

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates the C University (hereinafter “instant University”).

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was newly appointed as a professor at the University on March 1, 2003, and was reappointed as a professor guaranteeing retirement age on December 8, 2005 (from March 1, 2006 to August 31, 2018), and was appointed as the president on March 1, 2006 (from March 1, 2006 to February 28, 2010), and was appointed as the president on March 1, 2006, for four years (from February 1, 2006 to February 28, 2010).

B. On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff removed the Intervenor from office on the ground of an unlawful act in the process of appointing the D new-ranking Director, a foundation, and the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the removal on July 8, 2015 (the Defendant’s claim to revoke the removal).

C. On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors of an order to attend school on August 28, 2015, but the Intervenor sent a notice of refusal to attend school on August 31, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

The intervenor was appointed to the president on September 1, 2015.

E. On February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor from office on September 14, 2015, by taking into account the grounds for disciplinary action that the Intervenor did not attend the school despite being ordered to attend the school on September 14, 2015 and on September 24, 2015.

F. On April 20, 2016, the Defendant’s order of attendance and service at school cannot be deemed grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order, and the Defendant’s order of disciplinary action and the Defendant’s revocation is justifiable on the premise that “In the absence of dispute between both parties as to the fact that the Intervenor assumed as the president on September 1, 2015, the Intervenor did not have any concurrent office and profit-making obligation, but this fact may be recognized as grounds for disciplinary action because the Intervenor violated the duty of prohibition of concurrent office and profit-making.”