1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision of this case

A. On March 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was appointed as an early childhood education and full-time lecturer at C University operated by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), and was promoted as an associate professor on April 1, 2008, and served at the said university until December 11, 2018.

B. On October 24, 2018, when the Intervenor received a civil petition against the Plaintiff on the Cuniversity website, the Intervenor conducted a survey on early childhood education and students (147 answers among 175, hereinafter “instant survey”) and a fact-finding survey on the civil petition, and requested the Cuniversity Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on November 22, 2018.

C. On December 11, 2018, the Intervenor issued a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff’s misconduct (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disciplinary measure”); and (b) each of the detailed disciplinary reasons is referred to as “the grounds for disciplinary measure”; (c) the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity); and (d) Articles 63 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act; (d) Articles 55 (1) and 61 (1) of the Private School Act; and (e) Articles 61 (1) of the Private School Act.

(hereinafter “instant removal disposition”). Except for the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1-2, the subjects related to each of the grounds for disciplinary action among the subjects established by the Plaintiff in 2018 are not clearly identified.

However, in light of the results of the instant survey, etc., the grounds for the first disciplinary action are shown to be grounds for disciplinary action related to the “child’s rights and welfare subjects” established by the Plaintiff in the first semester of 2018, and accordingly, the existence of the grounds for the first disciplinary action should be determined accordingly.

On the other hand, in the case of disciplinary reasons No. 1-2 in the complaint, the Plaintiff stated that it was the time for the subject of the “education opening theory” established in the same semester, but it was erroneous in the relevant subject.