In a case where the Seoul National University President issued a false academic paper on the ground that he/she breached his/her duty of good faith and dignity maintenance as a public educational official under Articles 56 and 63 of the State Public Officials Act, the case holding that such disposition is lawful.

In a case where the president of Seoul National University removed the Seoul National Public Officials from office on the ground that he/she violated the duty to maintain good faith and dignity under Articles 56 and 63 of the State Public Officials Act as a public educational official for the professor of Seoul National University, on the ground that he/she violated the duty to maintain good faith and dignity under Article 56 and Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, the Seoul National University Research Committee cannot be deemed to have any defect that could affect the effect of disciplinary action, such as the composition or investigation period, investigation method, etc. of the Seoul National University Research Committee, and the foregoing professor's genetic (DN) analysis result and the revised stem cell stem cell lineme photographs of the 2004 research institute using data as the data as the first author and the joint cocomer, and on March 205, 2005, 2005, 111 specific patient cell cell cell reproduction was established in the experiment, and thus, 15 or 1601 of the Public Educational Officials Act's disciplinary action was lawful.

Article 51 (1) of the Public Educational Officials Act, Articles 56, 63, and 78 (1) of the State Public Officials Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorney Lee Young-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul National University President (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Lee E-ri et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 1, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's removal disposition against the plaintiff on April 1, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In around 1977, the Plaintiff graduated from a college of the Seoul National University, and obtained a master’s degree in around 1979 at the said university in around 1979, and was appointed as a full-time lecturer at the said university on May 10, 1986, and was employed as a professor of the veterinary department until April 1, 2006.

B. On April 1, 2006, the Defendant issued a dismissal disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 51(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 78(1)1 through 3 of the State Public Officials Act with respect to the Plaintiff’s grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant grounds for disciplinary action”) related to “the paper in 2004” related to “the first ground for disciplinary action and “the paper in 2005.”

The plaintiff, included in the main text, conducted research on the establishment, etc. of the stem cell line by human somatic nuclear transplantation. ① A stem cell line owner obtained as a result of the experiment on December 18, 2003 is not a stem cell line owner established by the donor's somatic nuclear transplantation as shown in the paper. However, in 2004 paper (No. (No. B. 6), the results of the analysis of the gene (DNA) operated by the stem cell line, and the revised cromaticme photographs of the cromatic stem cell line as data, and the false academic thesis was published as the first author and the joint co-owner of the stem cell line in the above paper, and prepared a false vegetable stem cell line as the first co-owner of the stem cell line in the above paper, and prepared a false vegetable stem cell line (No. 1) as a new e.g., a new vegetable model model in the above paper, and prepared a new vegetable stem cell line in the 2005 paper.

Note 2)This paper

Note 3)This paper

C. On April 20, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an appeal review with the Appeal Review Committee for Teachers of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, but was dismissed on August 21, 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 5, Eul 1 through 3, 6, 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The existence of procedural illegality

(A) Issues of the investigation conducted by the Seoul National University Investigation Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Seodae-dae”)

The Plaintiff’s excessive results of study on the establishment of embryonic stem cell cell, and the 2004 paper and the 2005 paper (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the thesis of this case”) were composed of investigators who lack expertise in the structure of the ovum, the reproductive ability of the first theater discharged from the victim, the procedure for the establishment of embryonic stem cell cell cell and the type and meaning of the research paper in 2005 paper (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the paper of this case”), and the 26-day research was completed without global transfer (this is compared to the research suspicion of professors in Japan’s east University Investigation Committee). (2) With respect to the selection of investigators, the research was conducted in the direction of the Plaintiff’s investigation, and the Plaintiff did not intentionally have any responsibility for the early joint research and re-research in accordance with the direction of exclusion from the Plaintiff. (3) In addition, the research was conducted in the course of the research, without disregarding the Plaintiff’s initial research opportunity.

As a result, the West published the stem cell No. NT-1 in the paper in 2004 as a stem cell derived from female reproduction (4) after the completion of the investigation, and published a false and distorted publication, such as the publication of the plaintiff's research team's 5 weeks that it cannot be recognized as a reading technology.

(B) Forgery of the Defendant’s original report on the conciliation division and procedural illegality therefrom

(1) Forgery of the original report on correspondence

The defendant changed the original report of the Western (A evidence 25; hereinafter referred to as the "original report") as shown below, and then delivered the forged written report (A evidence 4, A evidence 28-4, and A evidence 35-3, and (a) as alleged by the plaintiff, to the plaintiff prior to the request for a disciplinary resolution, and then submitted it to the disciplinary committee, the teachers' review committee, and the criminal procedure.

본문내 포함된 표 ⊙ 분량 축소 : - 서조위 원본보고서 중 ‘VII. 영롱이 진위 여부’, ‘VIII. 금품수수 경위’, ‘IX. 증거물 목록’, ‘X. 위원회 회의록’ 부분을 삭제하였다. ⊙ 내용 수정 : - ‘위원회의 면담 활동’ 부분 중 “13명의 외부기관 소속 연구자 및 관련자들을 면담 조사하였다.”, “총 95건의 증거물을 확보하였다.”를 “11명의 외부기관 소속 연구자를 면담 조사하였다.”, “총 100건의 증거물을 확보하였다.”로 각 변경하였다. ⊙ 원본보고서의 ‘총 증거물 목록’ 중 일부 삭제 및 일부 추가 : - 원본보고서의 ‘총 증거물 목록’에서 ‘영롱이 모체 조직세포 샘플(소외 2 PD 제출)’, ‘2004년 논문 투고 원고’, ‘스너피 관련 전문가 의견서(소외 3 교수)’, ‘스너피 관련 전문가 의견서(소외 4 교수)’를 삭제하고, - ‘2004년 사이언스 논문 작성 경위 관련 자료’, ‘소외 5 교수 관련자료’, ‘2005년 논문 작성 경위 증거물’, ‘재투고 원고’, ‘고해상도 사진’, ‘이유진 전 연구원 진술서’, ‘수의대 생명공학 연구팀 난자기증 동의서’를 새로이 추가하였다(갑 107호증의 1 내지 5 참조). ⊙ 항목별 증거물 목록 및 일부 내용 삭제 : - 원본보고서 제9쪽, 제12쪽 등에 설시된 ‘항목별 증거물 목록’을 삭제하고, - 원본보고서 중 2005년 논문 제출시점에서의 줄기세포 확보 여부, 배반포 및 줄기세포 확립 성공률과 조작 경위, DNA 지문분석 데이터, 테라토마 분석, 면역적합성 결과, 핵형분석, 논문 원고 작성과정 및 경위 부분의 일부 결론을 삭제하였으며, - 원본보고서 중 DNA 지문분석 데이터, 테라토마 분석, 그림 3의 오류, 그림 4의 오류 부분 중 일부 특이사항을 삭제하였다(갑 25호증 중 제15쪽의 〈특이사항〉, 제32 내지 34쪽의 〈특이사항〉 등 참조).

2. Procedural illegality

Breach of duty to submit related documents under the Act on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials;

The defendant did not submit a forged report which corrected, changed, or deleted essential matters of the original report, as if it were the original report, to the disciplinary committee as if it were the original report, and violated the duty to submit relevant documents under Article 6 subparag. 5 and No. 6 of the Decree on Punishment of Public Educational Officials by prohibiting the disciplinary committee from accessing evidence.

(B) Violation of the Plaintiff’s right to request witness and make statements under the Public Educational Officials Disciplinary Order.

Prior to the request for a disciplinary decision, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s right to request a witness or to make a statement in the disciplinary procedure prescribed in Article 9 of the Decree on Punishment of Public Educational Officials by demanding a written explanation and submitting a forged report to the disciplinary committee.

Obstruction of substantial deliberation by the Disciplinary Committee

The Disciplinary Committee is a quasi-judicial institution that performs fact-finding and judgment by submitting a false report as if necessary after independently receiving all data from a request for disciplinary resolution from the head of the school agency or a person requesting a disciplinary resolution, and grasps the case, without being excluded from the results of the investigation. The defendant submitted a false report as if it were an original report, thereby appropriating the scientific credit of the library, which is an independent verification body, and appropriating the scientific credit of the library, which is an independent verification body, and, in particular, deleted the core part, i.e., the 32 to 34 pages of the original report and the 15th page of the original report.

(2) Non-existence of the first disciplinary ground

First of all, NT-1 stem cell is not a stem cell derived from Nonparty 20, the donor listed in the paper in 2004, but a gene text analysis test of the above paper was operated, and the plaintiff recognized the fact that the plaintiff used the tetoma photograph of the medical research institute of NT-1, instead of the tetoma photograph of NT-1 (hereinafter "NT-1") for the stem cell for the above thesis. However, in light of the following circumstances, the ground for disciplinary action is not recognized.

(A) There is no fact that he was involved in genetic fingerprint analysis and testing, and there is no intention or negligence on manipulation.

Pursuant to the work division of multi-academic joint research, the examination of gene geographical analysis is conducted under the supervision of the business domains by taking charge of the selection of the inspection institution, the preparation of DNA samples, and the cost-bearing. The Plaintiff did not instruct the research institute to manipulate the gene geological analysis and examination, and the Plaintiff believed the results of the examination notified by the business domain without recognizing such fact at all, and published them in the thesis in 2004, and cannot be deemed that there was negligence on the Plaintiff on the part of the business division.

(B) There is a circumstance that may be considered in light of the circumstances in which false tetoma photographs were used.

Although the Plaintiff was able to use the metoma photograph of the stem cell line, this was merely neglected in the desire to get a good photograph on the paper because the name of the metoma photograph of the stem cell line No. NT-1, and there was no research result related thereto, nor did the Plaintiff direct the operation thereof or participated therein. Therefore, this part should not be considered as grounds for disciplinary action or at least as a disciplinary action.

(3) Absence of the second disciplinary ground

First, all stem cells (NT-2 & 12) known by the Plaintiff to have established patient-specific stem cells are stem cells, and therefore, the fact that the Plaintiff entered false details in the patient-specific embryonic stem cell establishment sight table (attached Table 1) and the immunological suitability result (attached Table 2), and the fact that the photographs (forest 1), DNA fingerprint analysis data (forest 2), themetoma analysis (forest 3), the embryo formation experiment, etc. (forest 3), are recognized. However, in light of the following circumstances, the ground for disciplinary action is not recognized.

(A) Note 6 of the Second Disciplinary Grounds

The grounds for the second disciplinary action shall not be specified as the grounds for the disciplinary action as follows.

(1) unspecified time and time of determining whether to conduct any operation;

Even if the research outcomes do not coincide with the contents of the research results at the time of the publication of the thesis, the reference point of determining them as manipulation or error should be the "basic date for final correction and re-making" of the relevant thesis and the "basic date for final correction and re-making" of the above thesis shall be April 25, 2005, but the only reference point of March 2005, which is the basic point of time specified in the above disciplinary cause, is irrelevant to the reference point of determining the above manipulation, and there is no other reference point of time to determine the manipulation.

(2) Specific and unspecified details of acts;

The ground for the second disciplinary action states that “only two stem cells presumed to be a patient’s customized stem cell exist,” and there is no “patient’s customized stem cell,” and all of them are inconsistent with the objective fact that they were fakes created by Nonparty 6, and whether the substitute Plaintiff engaged in any operation by using the terms “a corrected stem cell,” “a somatic cell reproduction stem cell,” “a patient’s customized stem cell,” or “a patient’s customized stem cell,” or not, is entirely specified.

(3) When relevant evidence has not been found.

The Disciplinary Committee violated Article 10 (2) of the Decree on the Disciplinary Action against Public Officials on the Methods and Details of the Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials, since the Disciplinary Committee was admitted as evidence only to the extent of the forged report and circumstances, and did not obtain any substantial evidence to ascertain the facts, and there is no judgment on it.

(B) Part of the grounds for the second disciplinary action is not false.

① Although the Plaintiff believed that a patient-specific stem cell was established, it was all found to be a stem cell for the correction of the business domain due to the crime of “mix” of the non-party 6 of the non-party 6, and the Plaintiff did not have participated in the above crime and rather was merely a victim.

(2) The time to establish a stem cell line shall be based on the date of creation into call lines. Since all stem cells except NT-9 and 12 have been created by call lines, it is true that there was no false or false recognition of part of the current status of the establishment of stem cell lines.

(c) was not involved in the operation and only there is negligence.

The Plaintiff did not directly prepare a thesis in 2005; Nonparty 7 collected all data from Nonparty 6, translated them into English, sent them to the professor of the U.S. S. Scatch University; and the professor first prepared a paper in 2005 and submitted it directly to the professor, and the response to the examination was made by the professor. Various prosecutors were conducted by Nonparty 9 doctor of the U.S. 8 professor’s office in the U.S. and Nonparty 10 doctor’s office in the U.S. National Science Investigation Institute. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not directly instruct or participate in the operation of various experiments as described in the grounds for disciplinary action. However, the Plaintiff instructed the Plaintiff to include it in the paper for 205 because of pollution caused by NT-4 or 7 accidents that were believed to have been established as a customized stem cell for patients.

(D) The part related to ovum acquisition cannot be deemed grounds for disciplinary action, and no error exists.

The Public Educational Officials Disciplinary Committee shall deliberate and determine the grounds for disciplinary action for which a disciplinary decision is requested by a person entitled to a request for disciplinary decision, and shall only deliberate and determine the grounds for disciplinary action, and shall not make a disciplinary decision on the grounds other than the grounds for disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu299, Sept. 25, 1984). Of the grounds for the second disciplinary action, the phrase “the process of acquiring ovum for experiment purposes is falsely described in the process of acquiring them to conceal ethical problems related to the acquisition of ovum for experiment purposes” is not stated as the grounds for disciplinary action by the Defendant’s written request for disciplinary decision, and there is no fact that the explanation is requested or deliberated on this part,

Even if this part can be seen as the grounds for disciplinary action, there is no fact that the Plaintiff merely provided an ovum collected according to the standards set by the Bioethics Committee (IRB) and the Bioethics faculty, based on the Bioethics and Safety Act enforced on January 1, 2005, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the supply and demand of ovum or the preparation of a thesis in 2005. Thus, the Plaintiff did not state false information about the process of acquiring ovum as stated in the grounds for disciplinary action.

(4) improper determination of disciplinary action

In light of the following circumstances, the removal in this case deviates from or abused the scope of the disciplinary discretion.

(a) Research laboratories and research outcomes;

NT-1 was confirmed to be a nuclear embryo stem cell (related to the paper in 2004), and at least NT-2 and 3 when considering the observation date of the first call as the time of the establishment of the stem cell line (related to the paper in 2005), and the Plaintiff intended to submit the results of the research as a thesis. Although the paper in 2004 was based on the 2005 paper, it was found that the 2005 paper was “mixture Nonparty 6” of the 2005 paper, it should be recognized to establish the distribution technology, which is the source of the research body. Ultimately, since the existence of the laboratory was merely an exaggeration or error in the relevant data, it should be viewed that all processes were false without the body of laboratories.

(B) A division of work for multi-school joint research

In order to establish a patient-specific stem cell that has no adverse response to immunity, it shall first be reproduced and distributed, and the method of reproduction and distribution shall be made by transplanting the body cell that intends to remove and reproduce the core of mature ovum and by taking measures for convergence and activation through appropriate shock and chemical treatment. The reproduction and distribution shall be made by cultivating the division of cells so that it may begin and grow up to distribution period. When it is distributed during the distribution period, the reproduction and distribution shall be carried out on the nutritional cells by extracting the internal organ organ leader in a vegetable cell, extracting the internal organ organ leader in a vegetable cell. After the internal cell leader is attached to a vegetable cell, the Plaintiff was established as a stem cell line by forming a vegetable cell group that can be reproduced (see attached Form 2, the process of establishing the embryonic stem cell cell), and the Plaintiff was merely in charge of performing the joint research by the victim's divediology and the process of identifying the reproduction and distribution of the stem cell line by the time it was established.

(C) Public service as a reproduction of animal

The plaintiff's educational achievement and animal reproduction expert [the 1995 So far, the 1995 So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called 199, the 199 So-called So-called So-called So-called 19, the 1999 So-called So-called So-called Mano-My, the 2002 So-called Mano-My production, the 2003 So-called Mao-My production, the world's first opening reproduction on August 2005, and the success in the world's first reproduction] should be recognized, and have contributed to the research.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 1. The entry in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as follows.

C. Determination of procedural illegality assertion

(1) As to the problems of the Western investigation

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole as evidence Nos. 10 and 25, the investigation procedure by the court below is merely a voluntary procedure prepared by the defendant prior to the defendant's request for a disciplinary decision, not a disciplinary procedure against the plaintiff, but a discretionary procedure established by the defendant's necessity. Thus, just because there is any defect in the investigation by the court below, the disciplinary procedure against the plaintiff is not illegal or the disciplinary action caused by it is not illegal, and it cannot be deemed that there is any defect that may affect the validity of the disciplinary action, such as the composition, investigation period, and method of investigation by the court below.

(A) On December 15, 2005, the Defendant: (a) several errors were found in the instant thesis; and (b) the results of the experiment were false; (c) the Plaintiff and other teachers of the Seoul National University determined whether to request a disciplinary decision against the Plaintiff, etc. to do so; and (d) the west did so in charge of the investigation to find out the truth. On December 15, 2005, the west was composed of Nonparty 1 professor of the Seoul National University, the chairman of the Seoul National University; (d) Nonparty 11 professor of the Seoul National Institute, the Seoul National Institute, the secretary, the professor of the 12 professor of the Seoul National University (Mologology); (d) Nonparty 13 professor of the Seoul National University, the Hanyang National University, the professor of the 15 professor of the Seoul National Agricultural Bioscience (Electronic Chemical Research), Nonparty 16 professor of the Seoul National University, the 10 major of the Non-Party 16 major of the Non-Party 16 major of the Seoul National Institute (Seoul National University).

(B) It is difficult to readily conclude that there was an error in the investigation because the period of investigation by the library was too 26 days, and it is difficult to view it as an insufficient investigation. In examining the authenticity of the thesis of this case, it is difficult to deem that there was a defect in the composition of the library in terms of expertise, etc.

(C) It does not have a duty to have the Seocho-gu participate in the investigation process or to provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to reproduce the direct research outcomes. In addition, since the above investigation merely revealed the authenticity of the thesis of this case already published and did not aim at verifying whether the Plaintiff’s research team possesses the original technology, it does not necessarily have to have provided the Plaintiff with an opportunity to reconstruct the research outcomes or experiments. In addition, even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as evidence No. 13, was examined by all of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as evidence No. 13, there is no evidence to deem that the Seocho-gu has conducted the investigation in the direction unfavorable to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s death”) in the direction unfavorable to the Plaintiff on purpose without disregarding the division of work due to multischool joint research.

(D) The plaintiff asserts that part of the contents of the non-party 1's publication of the results of the investigation of the West was distorted. However, even if such assertion is true, it cannot be deemed that the disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff were unlawful. In addition, the NT-1 stem cell is highly likely to have been created in the course of the introduction of the primary main body attached to the incomplete nuclear and ovum in the process of nuclear transplantation. It seems that the initial records that formed distribution through nuclear transplantation in the person other than the Yellow Team were made in the person other than the Yellow Team are not inconsistent with the plaintiff's creative records in light of the fact that the only result report of the original report and the revised report (referring to the "facsing report" claimed by the plaintiff; hereinafter the same shall apply) was made in the report of the Seognnam University on August 2005.

(2) As to the Defendant’s assertion of procedural illegality due to forgery of the original report

In full view of the following circumstances as a whole, the evidence Nos. 4, 25, Gap evidence Nos. 28-4, Gap evidence Nos. 35-3, Eul evidence Nos. 34-3, Eul evidence No. 10-1, Eul evidence Nos. 13-1, and 13-3, and the formation of the court below's composition, etc., the defendant is deemed to have corrected part of the investigation result of the court below's ruling to the extent that it does not harm the identity of the plaintiff, and submitted the revised report to the extent that it does not harm the identity of the plaintiff as follows, and thereby, the disciplinary procedure against the plaintiff does not constitute illegality.

(A) The Defendant re-classifieds the modified contents into the following: (a) modify some of the original report; (b) not disclose the likelihood of defamation or the name, etc. of the relevant researcher; and (c) delete the portion not included in the grounds for the instant disciplinary action, namely, whether the sexual harassment is true or not; and (d) deleted the part regarding “the circumstances leading to the receipt of money or goods,” and cannot be deemed to have any impediment to the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right of defense in the Plaintiff’s disciplinary procedure due to the correction or deletion falling under the above (i) or (iii).

(B) Although the defendant did not submit the evidence examined by the court below to the disciplinary committee, the defendant is only obligated to submit the "necessary evidence" under Article 6 of the Decree on the Punishment of Public Educational Officials and cannot be deemed to have a duty to submit all the evidence recorded in the original report or the revised report to the disciplinary committee on the ground of the above provision. Rather, the risk caused by the lack of evidence or the absence of relevant evidence is not the plaintiff, but only the defendant who has the burden of proof as to the grounds for disciplinary action.

(C) It was true that the Defendant deleted the list of evidence by item and deleted some contents, especially the original report on the subject of the 2004 gene fingerprint analysis test published by the Plaintiff in the year 2004 thesis 32 through 34, and the part of Non-party 6’s original report on the crime of “mixing” in the paper in the year 2005. However, the Defendant did not ask whether the Plaintiff actually established the somatic cell embryonic stem cell stem cell at the time of the preparation of the thesis in 2004, or whether the Plaintiff actually established the patient-specific embryonic stem cell cell at the time of the preparation of the paper in 2005, and it did not ask whether the false content was included in the various experimental tests as indicated in the paper in this case, and the Plaintiff was liable for disciplinary action as the first author of the paper in this case, and it is difficult to view that the disciplinary committee and the court of this case’s criminal procedure and the Plaintiff’s exercise of right to defense, such as deletion of the Plaintiff’s right to defense.

(d) Determination as to the existence of a ground for disciplinary action 1

(1) Acknowledgements on the preparation of a thesis in 2004

(A) From May 2002, the Plaintiff was leading the Plaintiff’s research team in Seoul High Research Center, leading the Plaintiff’s research team 8) NT-1, and conducted research on animal reproduction. Since the Plaintiff was mainly engaged in research on animal reproduction, the Plaintiff did not have experience in the treatment of ovum other than the process of forming distribution through nuclear transplantation B, and the distribution of distribution after nuclear transplantation. As such, Nonparty 18 and 6, a researcher of the U.S.M., were dispatched to the Plaintiff research team, and were in charge of the establishment and distribution of the main stem cell line (the entire process of the study on the establishment of the stem cell line, referring to the process of establishing the embryonic stem cell reproduction on attached Form 2).

(B) On March 2003 through April 2003, the Plaintiff formed NT-1 note 11) and ordered Nonparty 18 and Nonparty 6 to conduct a gene (DNA) analysis around May 2003. Nonparty 19 had Nonparty 6 mistake that the donor was a leap, and the Plaintiff reported Nonparty 6 to Nonparty 20.

(C) On May 5, 2003, Nonparty 6, preparing for the DNA cell samples for the above DNA fingerprint analysis, extracted DNA from Non-Party 20 blood, which was in custody of the NT-1, and sought to extract DNA No. NT-1 in order to prepare DNA samples on the DNA surface, but during the DNA War, DNA sediment was lost.

(D) Accordingly, Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 18: (a) divided the DNA of Nonparty 20, the body cell sample, into NT-1 stem cells and the body cell tubes, and sent it to Nonparty 10 at that time; (b) compiled the analysis results on May 6, 2003 that the DNA fingerprints of the stem cell sent by Nonparty 10 and the donor’s body cell cell cell, coincide with the DNA fingerprints, and delivered it to Nonparty 7; and (c) Nonparty 7 submitted it to the Trier, and eventually submitted it to the Trier, and then published it in Section A, B, and C in Section 13, and Section 14, “SCNH-E-14,” and Section 1673, respectively.

(E) Meanwhile, since August 2003, the Plaintiff was conducting the tetoma test several times, but the tetoma was not properly formed and did not take photographs of the tetoma as required by the tetos. Around November 2003, the Plaintiff requested Non-Party 18, and Non-Party 6 to procure and request the tetomamama block formed with the stem cell line correction of the NT-1 in order to take photographs that can replace the tetoma in the stem cell line. Accordingly, the Plaintiff stated Non-Party 18 and 6 on the tetomamama block No. 16 from the e to the e to the e to the e to the e to the e to the e to the e to the e to the e to the e to the e to the e to the 18th 18th e to the e to the e to the 16th e to the 17th e to the etoma.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 4, 12, 25, 32, 40, Gap 34-3, Eul 6, Eul 10-1, part of Eul 13-1 (the part against the plaintiff) and the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Whether there is a ground for disciplinary action 1

Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act provides for the duty to maintain dignity, which requires a public official to lead a healthy life as well as the part related to his/her duties, in light of the status of the public official who works for the whole public by widely accepting the status of the public official and being entrusted with the public duties. Here, the term “defensiveness” refers to a person who has no fluorous loss in performing the duties as a trustee of the citizens (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu18172 delivered on February 27, 1998). If a public official committed an act that directly affects the physical face of a public official as a public official and that of a public official, the act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action, regardless of whether he/she is liable for criminal liability (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu654 delivered on April 9, 1985).

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s presentation of the paper as the first author and the joint principal in 2004 using the fabricated gene (NA) analysis result as the data of the stem cell line’s interior as the data. Although the Plaintiff cannot be held liable for criminal liability for the manipulation of gene fingerprint analysis result, the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a violation of Article 55(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act, Article 78(1)1 through 3, Article 55, and Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, which constitutes grounds for disciplinary action provided for in Article 63 of the same Act.

(A) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff directly sold NT-1 stem cells to a domestic or foreign research institute on several occasions before and after the gene fingerprint analysis test (refer to evidence A 40), the Plaintiff appears not to have been aware of this fact at the time of the Plaintiff’s preparation and publication of the thesis in 2004, but rather, it appears that the Plaintiff had primary responsibility for this part to Nonparty 6 or Nonparty 18. However, the ground for disciplinary action in the first instance is not basically a matter of the Plaintiff’s participation in the operation of the gene fingerprint analysis test, not a matter of the Plaintiff’s participation in the research project, but the Plaintiff was responsible for not properly supervising the preparation of the thesis as the first author of the thesis in 2004 and the joint co-owner who is responsible for the entire research project (the other co-owner is Nonparty 5 professor). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff had been aware of data manipulation or was fully responsible for the joint research project’s failure, it is nothing more than the same reason for disciplinary action.

(B) In addition, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that “the Plaintiff directly requested the professor Nonparty 21 in Seoul Dae-gu to take photographs with the stem cell line for the correction of medidy.” While the court was aware that the metoma photograph, which was fabricated in this court, was published in the thesis in 2004, it is recognized that it impliedly admitted the fact.

(C) On the other hand, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion that theme photographs were not necessarily required for verifying the establishment of stem cell lines, or that they were actually formed at a time after the publication of the paper in 2004, it does not entirely interfere with the recognition of the grounds for disciplinary action 1.

E. Determination as to the existence of the grounds for the second disciplinary action

(1) Recognition of grounds for disciplinary action No. 2

(A) The reasons why the thesis was drawn up in 2005

① In 2004, the Plaintiff’s research team established NT-1, an embryonic stem cell line for the first time in the world, and published it in the space around February 2004, and received global attention. However, the outcome of the above thesis was that the same person’s ovum was used in the 2004 space. However, since the Plaintiff’s research team established a somatic cell cell cell cell line with nuclear transplantation, it is difficult to apply to treatment of all incurable patients because it is difficult to resolve any immunity response problem that may arise when inject it into the general patient for treatment. The success rate of the stem cell line establishment of an ovum stem cell line using 242 ovum to establish one stem cell line is merely 0.41%, and its efficiency is reduced. In the process of the establishment of the stem cell line, there was no limit to clinical infection of animal virus infection when it is applied to the human body as it is.

② Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s research team conducted subsequent research to overcome the limitation of the thesis in 2004. Nonparty 19, 25, and 18, which was the research team members of the thesis in 2004, were omitted. The new research team was composed of Nonparty 22, 23, and Nonparty 6, who was dispatched from the Seoul large-scale researcher.

③ Nonparty 6 was in charge of the cultivation of distribution of nuclear transplantation and the establishment of stem cell lines. At the stage prior to the formation of call, Nonparty 6 was considered to have established NT-2 through 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 4 + 205, and NT-2 through 12-2, and 205, by using the fact that it is difficult to distinguish between the internal stem cells (ICM) already established and cultivated from October 2004 and the 19) internal stem cells (ICM). Among them, it was included in NT-2 through 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 4 + 205 stem cells.

본문내 포함된 표 NT-번호 핵이식 배반포 부착(Seeding) 소외 6의 섞어심기 콜로니 생성 발견 비고 NT-2 2004. 9. 17. 2004. 9. 24. 2004. 10. 5. 2004. 10. 6. ？ NT-3 2004. 11. 13. 2004. 11. 19. 2004. 11. 24. 2004. 11. 25. ？ NT-4 2004. 11. 29. 2004. 12. 5. 2004. 12. 10. 2004. 12. 11. 2005. 1. 9. 오염사고로 모두 소멸 NT-5 NT-6 NT-7 NT-8 2005. 2. 7. 2005. 2. 13. 2005. 3. 7. 2005. 3. 9. ？ NT-9 2005. 1. 27.(1차) 2005. 2. 2.(1차) 섞어심기 안함 콜로니 미생성 1차 이후 콜로니가 형성이 되지 않아 2차 시도 2005. 2. 14.(2차) 2005. 2. 20.(2차) NT-10 2005. 2. 4. 2005. 2. 9. 2005. 3. 7. 2005. 3. 9. ？ NT-11 2005. 1. 29. 2005. 2. 3. 2005. 3. 7. 2005. 3. 9. ？ NT-12 2005. 1. 1. 2005. 1. 7. 내지 1. 9.경 섞어심기 안함 콜로니 미생성 ？ NT-13 2005. 2. 23. 2005. 3. 2. 2005. 3. 7. 2005. 3. 9. 2005년 논문에 미포함 NT-14 2005. 3. 30. 2005. 4. 4. 2005. 4. 20. 2005. 4. 22. NT-4+ 2005. 3. 30. 2005. 4. 4. 2005. 4. 20. 2005. 4. 22.

④ On the other hand, around January 9, 2005, when a call for NT-2 through 7 (the body was formed in Miz-4, 6, and 8) that had been born in the Seoul metropolitan area, the stem cell contamination accident occurred by substances presumed to be fungibico due to the number of the researchers in the Seoul metropolitan area, and all NT-2 through 7 destroyed, the Plaintiff’s research team returned the stem cell line NT-2, 3 (the body was Maiz-4, 8) that was distributed to the U.S. area in preparation for the safety accident.

⑤ Accordingly, around February 1 through 3, 2005, the above NT-2 and 3 (Miz-4, 8) were established as stem cell lines, and the NT-4 through 7 (Miz-4, 6) did not disappear due to pollution incidents. NT-8, 10, 11 (Miz-7, 10, 12) were formed only on March 9, 2005, and NT-9 and 12 were not yet formed as call lines.

⑤ The Plaintiff Research Team and the New Professor Crecil made a thesis (including NT-2 through 12) on the above patient’s customized stem cell, and submitted it to the Crecil on March 15, 2005. On April 25 of the same year, the above thesis was revised and reconciled. On May 19 of the same year, the above thesis was published online on the Crecination, and the paper was printed on June 17 of the same year with the approval of publication from the Crecination on May 12 of the same year.

(B) False entry in the paper of 2005

(1) A list of the establishment of a patient-specific embryo stem cell line (attached Table 1)

As seen earlier, NT-4 or 7 ceased to exist due to a pollution accident, NT-9, or 12 did not reach a call formation after nuclear transplantation, and as seen later, although NT-4 or 12 times did not properly conduct a verification inspection, the part of the paper of 2005 [Attachment 1] (No. 1778 pages) is written as if there were currently NT-4 or 7, and each verification inspection was conducted, and is written as if each verification inspection was actually conducted, and (b) NT-8, 10, or 11 copies were written as if each verification inspection was conducted. NT-9 or 12 were established as a stem cell line, and each verification inspection was conducted.

(2) The Ammunity (HLA) Test Note 21

In order to conduct a immunity test to examine whether or not any immunity reaction occurs by comparing and analyzing physical cells and stem cells, both physical cells and stem cell samples must be examined. However, in the part of [Attachment 2] of the paper of 2005 [Attachment 2] (No. 1781%), the stem cells No. NT-4 or 12 are falsely written.

3.22) Acquired chronological testing

The NT-4 through 11 p.m. is falsely written in Appendix 2005 [forest S1] A, B, and C of the paper of the year 2005 as if the immunodeficiency results had been done using the immunodeficiency photographs taken up in NT-2 and 3 even though the immunity color test was not actually conducted.

(4) Genetic (DA) geological analysis and testing.

The results of genetic fingerprint analysis are falsely stated in the main text of the thesis of 2005 [forest 2] [tlim 2] [tlim 1780 pages](NT-4 through 12], while genetic fingerprint analysis was conducted only with the samples of physical cells of NT-4 to 12 (the stem cell with the body cell with the body cells of 1780 pages).

5) State 23) Tear formation test

On A through X (1782 pages) of the thesis of 2005 (T-2), the photographs of the tetoma in NT-2, No. 3 and No. 4 are falsely written.

6)Inspection for production of embryos.

Miz-1 embryo photographs, a stem cell line, are recorded in the Y or E portion (No. 1782 pages) of the paper (No. 3) in 2005, in which the Y or E portion (No. 1782 pages) of the 2005 thesis, which is an embryo body photograph of the stem cell line, as a stem cell line, are falsely written in the embryo body photograph without specifying the cell line number.

(7) Parts concerning ovum acquisition.

The Plaintiff paid to the infertility women in Korea-U.S. and the hospital for artificial insemination in order to undergo artificial insemination treatment. Nonparty 24 paid to the infertility women in Korea-U.S. in 24 management, and Nonparty 24 used ovum for the stem cell research after being provided with ovum by reducing or exempting expenses for artificial insemination treatment. Nevertheless, in 2005, the paper stated that “the patients voluntarily provided ovum and somatic cells for the purpose of using them for the purpose of treatment and reproduction or reproduction, and opposed to the use for the purpose of reproduction or reproduction. The expenses for injection performed by means of transportation and medical professionals were paid, but no one requested this, and therefore no monetary compensation for donation was made in any form.”

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap's 4, 25, 32, Gap's 34-3, Eul's 9, Eul's 10-1, Eul's 13-1 through 3 (the part against non-party 24 or plaintiff) and the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) As to the assertion that the ground for the second disciplinary action was unspecified

Comprehensively taking account of the above-mentioned facts and the following circumstances admitted by the above evidence, the ground for disciplinary action No. 2 cannot be deemed unlawful.

(A) Although the "final correction and re-satiscing" of the thesis in 2005 was made on April 25, 2005, the time when the actual manipulation of the above thesis was made is before and after March 15, 2005, which is the time of the first publication. Thus, the time of the plaintiff's wrongful conduct cannot be said to be any error of law that specified the time of the plaintiff's wrongful conduct as around March 2005.

(B) The content of the ground for the second disciplinary measure, stating, “in fact that only two stem cells exist as a patient-specific stem cell line,” is inconsistent with the fact that the patient-specific stem cell line did not actually exist due to Nonparty 6’s “mixing stem cells.”

(C) Article 10(2) of the Public Educational Officials Disciplinary Decree, which provides that the Disciplinary Committee shall provide for the determination of evidence in the context of the grounds for the resolution on disciplinary action, shall be prepared to guarantee the right to defense and objection of a discipline accused person. If the Plaintiff was served prior to the disciplinary procedure and the Disciplinary Committee decided the pertinent disposition based on the Plaintiff’s statement in the above report on the correction and the resolution procedure, and if it appears that the Plaintiff was aware of such decision, it is difficult to deem that there was any obstacle to the Plaintiff’s exercise of his right to defense or objection on the ground that the Disciplinary Committee failed to separately explain the decision on relevant evidence in the

(3) As to the assertion that some of the contents are not false or merely a victim

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that the time of the establishment of the stem cell line is based on the date of call development, and that all stem cells except NT-9 and 12 are generated from the stem cell line, and that there was no false entry of the stem cell line or no false recognition. However, even if all stem cells except NT-9 and 12 were created from the stem cell line as alleged by the Plaintiff, as seen earlier, [Attachment 1] of the paper of 2005, as seen earlier, is related to the establishment status of the patient-specific stem cell line (NT-HSCs) and it is reasonable to deem that the stem cell line was established as a customized stem cell line as seen above, without any specific operation of the stem cell line as a result of various experiments, such as DNA fingerprint analysis, immunoching examination, nuclear type examination, embryo formation examination, embryotoma body formation examination, and immunity examination. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the stem cell line was a patient with customized stem cell line as seen earlier.

(B) On March 9, 2005, the ground for the second disciplinary action on the paper was established only NT-2, 3 (Miz-4, 8) as a stem cell line, and NT-4 through 7 (Miz-4, 6) was destroyed due to a pollution accident; NT-8, 10, 11 (Miz-7, 10, 2) was formed only on March 9, 2005, NT-9, and 12 were aware of the fact that the body had not yet been formed as a stem cell line, but all were found to have not been established as a stem cell line, and there was no false judgment on the part of the plaintiff who participated in the crime of Non-party 6 even if there were no circumstances that the plaintiff participated in the crime of Non-party 6.

(4) As to the allegation that the Plaintiff did not participate in the operation

On March 17, 2006, the Plaintiff appeared in the Disciplinary Committee 11 on the other 8th (in 7th) of 17th, “I would like to directly determine the number of soften stem cell lines.” This includes NT-4 through 7 and 12 patched NT-9, and it would be possible to make four destroyed stem cell lines again before the publication of the thesis. 2 was included in the name of the patient and to make it possible before the publication of the thesis. see, “I would like to make it impossible to think that I would not have it established if I would like to make the new 6th stem cell number of soften stem cell lines.”

In light of the Plaintiff’s respective statements, even if the Plaintiff did not directly and specifically direct the operation of various tests and did not directly prepare the results of the examination by operation, the Plaintiff is liable to the Plaintiff for the aforementioned NT-8, 10, 11 (Miz-7, 10, 2) call around March 9, 2009, which was around the first publication of the thesis, although the Plaintiff was formed with NT-8, 10, 11 (Miz-7, 10, 2) with knowledge of the fact that there were only two cells with the appearance of stem cells as the general manager of the above research and decided to have 11 stem cell lines known of the fact that there were only two stem cell lines. However, insofar as the Plaintiff did not have confirmed whether a new prosecutor had been conducted at least once, 10, and 11, the above NT-8, 205 thesis was written with the aforementioned false contents.

(5) As to the assertion on the part concerning ovum acquisition

Whether a worker's act of misconduct is a cause of disciplinary action or not should be determined by the disciplinary committee, etc. through specific materials. It does not necessarily mean that the cause of disciplinary action is limited only to the grounds for disciplinary action specified in the rules of employment or disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du10174 decided September 11, 2008, etc.).

In light of the fact that the grounds for disciplinary action in the Defendant’s written request for disciplinary decision appears to be related to the comprehensive false facts of the thesis in this case, the Plaintiff’s revised report sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff at the time of the Defendant’s request for disciplinary decision also refers to the process of acquiring ovum, and the process of acquiring ovum is actually required by the Disciplinary Committee to explain to the Plaintiff about the facts different from the thesis in this case, it cannot be deemed unlawful even if this part is considered as the grounds for disciplinary action.

In addition, despite the enforcement of Bioethics and Safety Act as seen earlier, it is recognized that the Plaintiff provided monetary benefits as an infertility to patients who suffered in order to receive infertility treatment among ovum donors, and that the receipt and use of ovum in conjunction with the pecuniary benefits in light of the legislative purpose of the above Act is entailing ethical problems. Therefore, this part of the grounds for disciplinary action is also recognized.

(6) Sub-committee

Therefore, it is recognized that the Plaintiff published a false academic thesis by manipulating the results of various experiments, which were established by the stem cell line owner of 11 patient-specific somatic cell cells, and falsely describing the process of acquiring ovum, etc. in the situation where only two stem cell lines presumed to exist as a patient-specific stem cell line around March 2005, as stated in the ground of disciplinary action in Article 2, including the statement in the ground of disciplinary action, and the Plaintiff’s act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action stipulated in Article 51(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act, Articles 78(1) through 3, 56, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act.

F. Whether the disciplinary authority is exceeded and abused

The Plaintiff, a general manager of the thesis of this case, and a joint manager of the foregoing thesis, who has intentionally fabricated the data of this thesis, thereby impairing the trust foundation for science. The Plaintiff had a big impact on the global evaluation of the science level of Seoul National University and Korea without cleaning. Although the Plaintiff’s responsibility was unsatisfy, the Plaintiff appears to have an attitude to avoid liability by carrying out joint research’s duties division, etc., as well as the fact that the Plaintiff obtained reputation such as the first grade Order and the chief professor or the chief researcher, and has enjoyed special benefits, such as receiving the people’s expectation, through the achievements caused by the act of misconduct, such as the grounds for the instant disciplinary action, such as obtaining the reputation such as the first grade Order and the chief researcher, and obtaining the people’s expectation.

In full view of these circumstances, considering all favorable circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, such as previous academic achievements, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as deviating from or abusing the scope of the disciplinary discretion, and it does not change even if there are substantial laboratories in relation to the thesis of this case, or there was no active involvement in partial manipulation (in particular, the part concerning the manipulation of thesis in 2004) as the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 2] Relevant Statutes: omitted

[Attachment 2] The course for establishing embryonic stem cell reproduction: omitted

Judges Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) As to the professional terms contained in the grounds for disciplinary action 1 and 2, the judgment in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Article 2 shall be described in detail through each State.

Note 2) On March 12, 2004, the term “the paper written in 1669 to 1674” refers to the paper that read “the cloned blastocy from Efryoning from Efryoning from Ef. 303.” hereinafter referred to as “the paper of 2004.”

Note 3) On June 17, 2005, the term “Pat-T blastocysts” is the thesis published in the CNT blasstocysts from Patch sembryonic sembryoning,” which is referred to as “in 2005,” which is referred to as “the paper” (which is referred to as “the customized stem cell of patients derived from the distribution of the nuclear transplantation of human body cells cells).

4) On January 10, 2006, the Plaintiff announced No. 1 NT-1, which was first published by the chairman of the Roster’s National Assembly with an embryonic stem cell, as the stem cell from female reproduction. On February 24, 2006, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that Nonparty 1 would be well aware of the origin of NT-1 from the broadcast program “Seban 60 minutes” (see evidence 16-4 of the evidence). However, in light of the fact that Nonparty 1 filed a patent application for the patent for the stem cell on June 29, 2006 at the Industry-Academic Industry Cooperation Foundation, an affiliated organization of the Seoul Research Center (see evidence 20, e.g., evidence 16-1). In light of the fact that Nonparty 1’s notification was distorted (see evidence 20).

5) The Plaintiff asserts that, in light of the fact that the Stojkic’s research team used the technology under the Plaintiff’s research team’s research team’s 2004 paper on physical cell nuclear transplantation, or that the editing chapter of the Red Product is also the priority to the Plaintiff’s research team on the said technology, the Plaintiff’s research team’s research team’s publication to the effect that the Plaintiff’s research team’s reproduction and distribution technology cannot be recognized was distorted.

Note 6) This part of the argument is considered to be about the illegality of disciplinary proceedings, but it is to be determined in the part of the judgment (Article 2-5(e)) on the existence or absence of disciplinary grounds in accordance with the order of the plaintiff's assertion.

Note 7) The term ○ stem cell line means a stem cell line that can be divided into organs or tissues of the body. The revised stem cell line means a stem cell line formed by the sperm and the ovum. As the stem cell line with a different DNA donor is formed by only the ovum with a new DNA or new DNA, it is unlikely for the patient to agree with the DNA and the patient cannot be transplanted to the patient. The ○○ cell transplantation stem cell line (related to the thesis of 2004): The stem cell line that is formed by transplanting the patient's body cells to the patient's ovum instead of the sperm, it is possible to obtain a stem cell line with DNA such as the patient, but it is possible to perform procedure only for the female patient who can produce the ovum, and the defendant made an oral statement about the patient's somatic cells with a different DNA (related to the paper of 2005): the defendant's oral statement on the same content as the defendant's stem cell line 10 on the patient's ovum, and the defendant's oral statement on the same part of the defendant's 10.

8)A patient’s somatic cell transplantation from an ovum removed artificially to establish an embryonic stem cell rather than through natural modifications of sperm and ovum is transferred entirely to the same embryo with a person who provided an embryonic cell in the laboratory;

9) The Plaintiff Research Team ordered NT-1 to inject human somatic cells into an ovum with its nuclear nucleus removed [the stem cell called NAT-1, which is first established through nuclear transplantation and NT (Nu Titter). From around 1998, the professor Jampson of the Franson of the Franchiscom University of the United States (Jams A. Thomson) first established the embryonic stem cell line using other embryos in the process of infertility treatment, and only the embryonic stem cell line for human beings was established and studied. The NT-1 of the instant NT-1 appears to have significant scientific meaning as a human embryonic stem cell that was first established, and at the time of the establishment of NT-1, there was controversy over the possibility of reproduction and reproduction of the paper, including the possibility of reproduction in the paper, in the case of a flusium at the university of the United States, S. S. S. S. S. S. S., at the time of the establishment of NT-1.

Note 10) The term “nuclear transplantation of a somatic cell” means the technology from which the nucleus has already been extracted after extracting the nucleus from the original somatic cell and then inserting it into the removed ovum, and means that the nucleus of the somatic cell is transplanted to the ovum by using static manipulation and then inducing the nucleus of the somatic cell to be converged into the ovum. The Plaintiff’s research team and recent scholars, including the Plaintiff’s research team, do not extract the nucleus of the somatic cell, and inject the somatic cell itself into the removed ovum.

Notes 11) colony and cell cells are reproduced and developed to deal with garments.

12) Genetic fingerprint analysis is the most basic test to confirm whether the embryo stem cell is derived from the somatic cell. It is conducted by extracting DNA from the somatic cell and the stem cell sample and comparing and analyzing them. Since the embryo stem cell that has been successfully formed from the somatic cell is eventually derived from the somatic cell, the genes of the said embryo stem cell in theory would have the same result as the genes of the embryo donor, not from the genes of the ovum donor or the mature ovum donor's genes. However, in the case of the stem cell by using the somatic cell of the donor, i.e., the donor of the somatic cell, if the donor of the embryo is the same as that of the embryo donor, it is difficult for the embryo donor to analyze whether the embryo stem cell is a somatic cell from the embryo donor or the embryo donor's somatic cell from the embryo donor's somatic cell through the somatic cell, even if the DNA fingerprints of the stem cell is the same as that of the embryo donor, it is difficult to distinguish the embryo donor's somatic cell from the embryo donor's somatic cell from the embryo donor.

13) It means a somatic cell provided for nuclear transplantation, which is transplanted to an ovum.

14) A stem cell made by inserting human body cells, human embryonic stem cells (Somae Nu N, applied to tembryonic Stemll), and human somatic cells into an ovum removed.

Note 15) Whether the established embryonic stem cell line has the ability to divide it into three-storys, such as external side leaves, secondary side leaves, internal side leaves, etc., one of the characteristics of the embryo stem cell, i.e., the method of verifying the differentiation of the stem cell line, i.e., the method of verifying the differentiation of the stem cell line, i.e., the embryo stem cell is determined to have been established if it is confirmed that the scromatic layers from the tetoma formed

Note 16) A corrected eggs established in a business domain is a stem cell (a cell that can be divided into each institution after the division of a cell after the correction of the ovum and the static body) and a corrected stem cell of the business domain is named from Miz-1 to Miz-15 in the order of the time of its establishment.

Note 17) A cell attached to a transparent belt of an ovum, which is a body cell.

Note 18) If a cell is cultivated at a solar spawn, the cell is set up on one floor on the floor at the spawn site, and in this situation, if the cells continue to be divided, it stops due to the lack of space for proliferation attached to the spawn at the time of spawn. In order to continue these cells, part of the cell should be removed from the spawn at the time of the spawn and transferred at the time of new spawning.

Note 19) If an ovum is combined with sperm, it forms a distribution system consisting of multiple cells through the division of cells. It is called an internal cell dynass, and ICM. If the cells of this internal cell dynas, are separated from distribution to distribution, and are transferred to a specific environment, it does not occur, but can create so-called embryonic stem cells with the ability to divide.

Note 20) NT-2 through 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 stem cells listed below are not patients-specific stem cells, but all of Non-Party 6’s “mixture-13,” and “NT-2” means the stem cell of the disguised fird Miz-4, NT-4, and 5, Miz-4, NT-6, 7, Miz-6, NT-8, Miz-10, Miz-10, Miz-2, NT-13, Miz-7, MiT-14, MiT-2, NT-14, and Miz-2, MiT-4, and no entity is mixed, Miz-1, MiT-2, NT-14, and Miz-2, Miz-4, and no entity is mixed.

Note 21) If an embryo stem cell is transplanted to a patient, the method of identifying whether there exists a reaction to immunity, as a method of collecting DNA samples from a somatic cell and stem cell, and then confirming it through a gene explosion (PCR) process. HLA is the weak of HLA, Leukocy Angen Angengen Angengens.

Note 22) An all-round stem cell test is an essential verification test to verify whether the stem cells established have the characteristics of a general stem cell. In common stem cells, it is verified by verifying whether there is a port source (such as AP, SESA-1, SESA-3 SESA-4, TRA-1-60, TRA-1-81, and Oct-4, etc.) using the characteristic features shown on the surface of a common stem cell. In other words, if the body of an aviation that recognizes the above port source is spread on the stem cell surface, it is rapidly color or yellow by causing reaction in combination with the above port source, and it is confirmed whether the body is a part of the stem cell characteristics, but the above experiment merely confirms the general characteristics of the stem cell and thus does not change the results of the examination.

Note 23) Unlike the embryo formation test, the embryo stem cell is determined to have been established when the embryonic layer is confirmed from the stem cell line to the top of skina (SCID MUE) which is ordinarily removed from the stem cell line to artificially in the way of confirming the decentralization of the organ of the stem cell by conducting an embryo formation test on the biochemical body and confirming the skima’s dynasium, etc., unlike the embryo formation test. However, unlike the embryo formation test, the embryo formation test is a test conducted within the body of the body, such as the skid, and thus it is more reliable and objective than the embryo formation test conducted at the skid, and thus, in general, the embryo formation test is required for a long period of time in the case of ordinary stem cells for the purpose of attaining the accuracy of the embryo formation test, and it is normally required to verify the skinasium formation test.

Note 24) Whether the embryo stem cell established has the ability to divide the embryo stem cell into three-storys, such as external side leaves, secondary side leaves, internal side leaves, etc., one of the characteristics of the embryo stem cell, i.e., the possibility of differentiation of the stem cell before the stem cell, rather than having the stem cell be cut to a nutrition cell, rather than having the stem cell be cut to be cut to a vegetable cell, and if the embryonicization is encouraged to be cut to be cut to the stem cell (e.g., e., e., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., e.

Note 25) The inspector asked the Plaintiff that “I would like to make a statement about the ovum provider at first time with the paper attached thereto, and there was a difference between the truth and truth?” The Plaintiff asked the Plaintiff that “I would like to do so,” and again, asked the Plaintiff that “I would like to make a statement about the part? I would like to do so?” and the Plaintiff again asked the Plaintiff that “I would like to do so?” (See evidence 34-3, evidence 10-1, and the minutes of the 8th Disciplinary Committee).” (See evidence 34-3, evidence 10-1, and the minutes of the 8th Disciplinary Committee.