1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On March 1, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the appointment of clinical professors with the Defendant, a juristic person established pursuant to the Act on the Establishment of National University-affiliated Institutes (the appointment period: from March 1, 2018 to February 28, 2019), and served as the chief of the department (the clinical Professor) in the radiation species department at the medical clinic at the Defendant hospital.

B. The Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff 1) On August 21, 2018, C, D, and E, a radiation worker belonging to the department of radiation therapy at the Defendant Hospital, filed a request for a grievance review against the Plaintiff on the grounds as indicated in the attached Form with the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman submitted the result of the review to the Personnel Committee. 2) On December 28, 2018, the Chairperson of the Defendant Hospital notified the Plaintiff on December 28, 2018, that the Chairperson of the Ombudsman requested the Personnel Committee to deliberate on the relevant matters, and notified the Plaintiff of the explanation to the 9th Staff Ombudsman’s statement.

3) As a result of the deliberation on January 9, 2019, the Defendant Personnel Committee decided to refer the case to the Disciplinary Committee. On January 14, 2019, the head of the hospital decided on January 14, 2019 that the Plaintiff’s act, such as “the Plaintiff’s 9th Staff Dispute Settlement Committee” against the Plaintiff, “language violence against the claimant,” and “probing employees,” constitutes an abuse of authority, and that the Defendant Disciplinary Committee demanded a disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the act constitutes an abuse of authority, and that the Defendant Disciplinary Committee made an attempt that may be considered as employment expenses. 4) on the following grounds, on January 18, 2019, the Defendant Disciplinary Committee applied Article 68 [Attachment 5] subparag. 1 (Violation of Duty of Good Faith) and subparag. 7 (Violation of Dignity’s Dignity) of the Personnel Regulations to the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff for a period of three months of suspension.

The plaintiff's series of actions filed with the Staff Ombudsman at the 9th Session (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Reason 1") is unfair acts that abuse his superior position and authority, and not only the victim's appeal for mental damage, but also the petitioner for grievance.