1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Intervenor’s assertion B posted “the purport of establishing an industry-academic cooperation foundation” stating distorted facts in the course of the Plaintiff’s discovery of the violation and the Plaintiff’s investigation, and slandered the Plaintiff’s employees without any grounds, thereby significantly impairing the Plaintiff’s credit and reputation.

In addition, the Intervenor C violated the duty of concurrent office and affected the Plaintiff’s moving into the Auniversity business incubator managed by the Plaintiff, and eventually, the said company did not pay rent, etc. to the Plaintiff, thereby causing financial loss to the Plaintiff. The Intervenor incurred intangible damage, such as impairing the Plaintiff’s trust in the legality of the administrative procedure by using the Plaintiff’s official seal without permission.

In full view of these circumstances, the dismissal of the intervenors is legitimate, since they are responsible to the participants to the extent that they could not continue the employment relationship with the plaintiff under social norms.

B. In full view of the following circumstances cited above, the evidence and the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 85 through 93 submitted at the trial of the court, and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is difficult to deem the Intervenor to have a responsibility to the extent that the Plaintiff cannot continue to maintain the employment relationship with the Plaintiff even if considering all the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, it is reasonable to deem the dismissal of the instant case to be unlawful beyond the scope of discretion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(1) Evidence No. 26 and evidence No. 93, etc. of Party A.