1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

purport.

1. Details of decision on the petition examination;

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates the C University (hereinafter “instant University”).

On December 1, 2002, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was newly appointed as a faculty member of the Chinese Department from January 7, 2008 to March 3, 2013 of the pertinent university, and served as the Chief of the Educational Affairs of the said university from January 7, 2008 to March 3, 2013. From June 27, 2009 to March 5, 2013, the Intervenor was also serving as the Chief of the cultural course.

B. On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee to decide on a disciplinary action against the Intervenor. On February 19, 2016, the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Intervenor on the ground of the following disciplinary reasons.

Accordingly, on February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the intervenor that he/she was punished by dismissal on the grounds of the above disciplinary reasons.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal disposition” (hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal disposition”) . 1. An intervenor who received money from an external institution related to his/her duties (hereinafter referred to as “Disciplinary Reason 1”) violated the duty of integrity by accepting money and valuables worth KRW 14,264,07 per month from January 201 to March 2013 from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) which is an external contracting entity related to his/her duties.

2. An intervenor who disclosed personal information documents without approval (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”) submitted to the Defendant a contract for appointment in 2002 and 2008 by professor E, who falls under the personal information documents without approval of the Plaintiff, at the time of examining a petition for appeal in 2014, and violated the duty of confidentiality in the course of performing his/her duties and the duty of prohibiting the release of personal information by divulging the resignation of the assistant F to the outside in 2015.

1. In light of the fact that the amount paid by the non-party company to the acceptance of money and valuables to the intervenors is not the monthly fixed amount but the amount remaining at the end, the intervenor’s assertion of actual expense settlement following the processing of receipts is recognized as credibility, and the Plaintiff’s disbursement details used as the business promotion expenses are submitted to the non-party company