1. On February 27, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition of revocation of appointment and revocation of the issuance of an appointment No. 2018-810 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

Details of the disposition

On November 2017, the Plaintiff confirmed and supported the public announcement of invitation of professors in the field B of education priority teachers (hereinafter “instant public announcement”) at C University affiliated with the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) in 2018.

On March 1, 2018, the Plaintiff was notified of the appointment of an assistant professor by the president of C University, and was appointed as an assistant professor of C University Convergence University.

On November 26, 2018, an intervenor submitted research records differently from the facts to the documents to be submitted at the time of appointment and support by the Plaintiff on the ground that he/she violated Article 4(3) and Article 14 subparag. 1 and 5 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Faculty Members on the ground of the violation of Article 4(3) and Article 14 subparag. 1 and 5 of the said Regulations, and the cancellation of appointment on March 1, 2018.

(2) The reasons for the action are as follows.

The term "F", which is the thesis in No. 1 E, among the research business list submitted by the plaintiff at the time of the plaintiff's invitation of professors, is "the thesis of this case".

The Plaintiff, on December 21, 2018, filed a claim with the Defendant for the cancellation of the instant disposition of cancellation of appointment on December 21, 2018, although the time of the announcement was written in September 2017, the Plaintiff was actually published in December 2017. However, the Defendant’s dismissal of the instant disposition by the head of 2018-810 on February 27, 2019 (hereinafter “instant decision”).

B. On March 14, 2019, the decision was notified to the Plaintiff.

The approximate contents are as follows:

The issue of whether to recognize a thesis to be published is in accordance with the standards of the relevant university, and does not explicitly indicate that it is excluded as other universities in relation to the recognition of the paper to be published, but when considering the content of the intervenor’s publication, it is insufficient to say that the author’s research work, which was determined by the intervenor’s qualification requirements through the instant publication, is in a situation where it is possible or final and conclusive, such as simply granting DOI numbers within the standard period, and actually published the paper.