1. As to the case on May 18, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor seeking revocation of the dismissal disposition.

1. Details of decision on the petition examination;

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

The plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer at the university of this case on July 24, 1992 and was employed on May 13, 2006 and worked as an associate professor at the university of this case from August 15, 2008.

B. On February 15, 2016, the Intervenor’s teachers’ disciplinary committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the grounds delineated below by the Plaintiff were deemed to have exceeded the limit of the student guidance and constitutes an abuse of the authority by taking advantage of the superior position of professors and constitutes a serious act detrimental to the professor’s dignity and constitutes a violation of Article 7 of the Regulations on the Service of the Teachers and Staff. The Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on March 4, 2016.

(2) On January 1, 201, the Plaintiff’s ground for the first disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, as a university faculty member, shall comply with the relevant laws and regulations, etc., and shall not impair the honor and dignity of the university.

A. A. Around 14:30 on October 13, 2015, the head of a DNA student was put in physical speed without prior notice on the ground that he/she instructed a swimming physical examination (a swimming physical), which was implemented in a swimming pool (around 14:30 on the ground that he/she was in a sudden fashion of the head of a DNA student without prior notice; even if the petitioner expressed his/her intention of refusal, the petitioner had repeated the same act three times, thereby making him/her drinking water difficult to respiratory and strong fear (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1-”)

B. At the same place, the Plaintiff stated that D during the practical examination that D did not properly see that D had the string to the Plaintiff, so that D had the string soften, so that D could not be re-stened too much once again, because it had the string soften, and the Plaintiff could not go back to the string. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s string with D's string with the string, and it was found that D reached the string with the string, and that D would go up by the string and string.