1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the review and decision;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is currently establishing and operating the C University and D University, and the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a hedge design and full-time lecturer at C University on March 1, 2005, and was promoted as an assistant professor on September 1, 2012.

B. On September 1, 2013, the Intervenor examined whether the Plaintiff did not have any registered student of the Hague Design and its affiliated organization (including a temporary student) and provided the Plaintiff with an opportunity to apply for or propose major transition education on several occasions, but the Plaintiff was able to teach the similar subject within the C University, and whether the Plaintiff could be assigned to the D University as an intervenor, but the conversion is not possible due to the lack of similar subject and teaching process. However, the Intervenor’s articles of incorporation (hereinafter “Articles of incorporation”), Article 56(1) proviso to Article 46(1) of the Private School Act, Article 8(4) of the Intervenor’s Regulations on the Adjustment of Educational Affairs of C University (hereinafter “Rules on the Management of Educational Affairs”) and Article 4-2(2)2 of the Regulations on the Management of Educational Affairs of C University (hereinafter “Rules”).

(hereinafter “Dismissal of this case”). C.

On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the dismissal of the instant case, and filed a request for review of the appeal against the Defendant on September 24, 2013, and the Defendant made efforts to avoid dismissal on December 9, 2013, and accordingly, the Plaintiff dismissed the request for review of the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that

(hereinafter referred to as the “examination and decision of this case”). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 9, Gap evidence 30-1, 2, Eul evidence 63 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the review and decision of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is unlawful as to the Hague design and the abolition thereof, and the employees belonging thereto are mobilized.