1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance which is to be stated in this judgment is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to

Part 9 of the decision of the first instance shall add to the following:

“D) Meanwhile, the Defendant and the Intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action could not be deemed grounds prior to the appointment of the Plaintiff’s employees, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s ground that the Plaintiff’s ground for disciplinary action could not be deemed grounds prior to the appointment of the Plaintiff’s employees, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s ground that the Plaintiff’s ground for disciplinary action cannot be said to be grounds for disciplinary action on the ground that the Plaintiff’s employment did not constitute grounds for disciplinary action prior to the appointment of the Plaintiff’s employees.

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3, and evidence No. 3, the intervenor submitted an application to establish a university to the effect that he/she succeeds to the status of his/her claims and obligations, members, such as students, school staff, etc., and facilities and equipment, and received authorization for establishment from the Minister of Education on the condition that he/she faithfully implements a plan to establish a university management plan, students, and school staff, and succeeds to the current status of claims and obligations of the pertinent university. However, even though it is recognized that the intervenor obtained new authorization for establishment without obtaining authorization for establishment of the pertinent university, the above facts established by the intervenor are insufficient to acknowledge that the intervenor comprehensively succeeded to the D University

E. The defendant and the intervenor also committed acts falling under the grounds for disciplinary action before the plaintiff is appointed to the intervenor.