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

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is an educational foundation that operates the E University located in Gangnam-si D (hereinafter "Plaintiff University"), and the defendant B is appointed as the plaintiff's director from October 5, 2003 to October 4, 2007 from the plaintiff's University dean, from September 1, 2004 to August 31, 2008, and the defendant C is appointed as the plaintiff's full-time teacher on March 1, 2005 and dismissed on June 27, 2009.

B. On January 1, 2005, the Plaintiff’s university announced the recruitment of 18 full-time and full-time faculty members in the Plaintiff’s department, including F and one full-time faculty member, and Defendant C applied for the appointment of F and full-time faculty member to the Plaintiff’s university on January 13, 2005. 2) After review, the Plaintiff was appointed as Defendant C F and full-time faculty member on March 1, 2005 (hereinafter “new appointment”). Defendant C were reappointed on March 1, 2007 and March 1, 2009.

(hereinafter referred to as “the first re-election” in accordance with the sequences Nos. 1000,000.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 317,984,080 to Defendant C as wages from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2011.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there exists no dispute, Gap’s No. 4, Gap’s No. 5-1, and Gap’s No. 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. As to the Defendants, F and G recommended Defendant C while requesting the recruitment of full-time teachers employed by Defendant C as concurrent teachers on or after five (5) days, and Defendant C failed to meet the qualification requirements for appointment under the detailed plans for screening full-time teachers and faculty members on the first semester of 2005 at the Plaintiff university. However, Defendant C failed to meet the qualification requirements for appointment under the detailed plans for screening full-time teachers and faculty members on the first semester of 2005 at the Plaintiff university.

1. Defendant B, who had filed an application for appointment on 13. The principal of the Plaintiff’s University, was the Plaintiff’s director, was the blood relatives of Defendant C, and could not attend the teachers’ interview with the Defendant C, and could not attend the board’s resolution. However, the above relationship is hidden.