1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing this case, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases where the court of first instance presents some contents, and thus, citing this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. A’s evidence No. 3 is added to the “founded ground for recognition” of No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 3.

Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that " December 27, 2012" in Part 2 of the judgment of first instance shall be " January 2, 2013."

Part 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "from 5 to 5 to the criminal judgment of this case" has been committed as follows.

In the appellate court (U.S. District Court 2014No3343) on the instant criminal judgment, the appeal by J was dismissed, and M was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2.5 million on October 23, 2014. Accordingly, the appeal by J and M was filed by the court of final appeal (Supreme Court 2014Do15182). Although J cannot be deemed to have the status of a manager of non-academic cooperation foundation funds, the court of final appeal (Supreme Court 2014Do15182) determined that it was unlawful to recognize the crime of embezzlement in the course of business, and reversed and remanded the lower court’s judgment against J, and dismissed the appeal by M, and the appeal by the reversed appellate court (U.S. District Court 2015No1522) was dismissed, one year of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution against J was finalized. 2, 2014.”

(In this Court, the Intervenor withdrawn the Intervenor’s drafting of the document as of December 27, 2012 by this Court, the Intervenor H’s written approval on December 28, 2012, and the Intervenor N’s disciplinary action on the draft document as of December 28, 2012. In addition, the date of actual draft or approval of the said document appears to have been January 4, 2013, and the disciplinary action as of December 30, 2014, which is the date of the request for a disciplinary decision, does not appear to have been even passed by the statute of limitations on December 30, 2014. The period of prescription as of December 21, 2014, which is the date of the request for a disciplinary decision, shall be deleted by the period from 13th to 14th day.

Once the first instance judgment was rejected, the following contents are followed by the 12th sentence.