1. The part of the claim for nullification of a removal among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant from December 15, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is an educational foundation that operates a shopping district school, and the plaintiff is appointed as a professor at the shopping district university on March 1, 1996 and served as B and professor.

B. The Defendant removed the Plaintiff on December 15, 2014 following the resolution of the teachers’ disciplinary committee, following the grounds for disciplinary action as follows.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”); Grounds for Disciplinary Action

1. The Plaintiff’s defamation of a school (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”) damages the school’s reputation by continuously inserting a letter of slandering a private teaching institute and a shopping college on a large number of press media, such as Handore, SBS, and a private sound, after April 2014. 2. From September 14, 2007 to May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff violated Article 55 of the Private School Act and Article 23 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of the Standing University (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”).

On December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disciplinary action and filed an appeal review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers seeking the revocation of the instant disciplinary action.

Although the illegality of the procedure in the instant disciplinary action is not recognized on March 11, 2015, the Appeal Commission for Teachers determined that the grounds for disciplinary action was not recognized on the ground that only the grounds for disciplinary action No. 2 was recognized in relation to the grounds for disciplinary action, and the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1 was based on objective facts and cannot be seen as false facts even if some exaggerated expressions exist

The above commission made a decision to change the disciplinary action of this case into one month due to excessive disciplinary action.

(hereinafter “instant decision”) D.

On the ground that there exists a serious defect in the procedure of the instant disciplinary action, and only the grounds for disciplinary action No. 2, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant decision.