1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit include the part resulting from the defendant's participation.

1. Details of decision on a petition for teacher;

A. The Plaintiff is a school juristic person operating the E University in 1,00, and the intervenors have served as the head of E University and professor.

B. On May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff dismissed the intervenors from office on the grounds of the following: (a) the Intervenor committed misconduct in relation to the beautya program and job creation project of the Korea Development Institute; (b) embezzled the school budget, such as tuition fees; and (c) instigated another person to mislead the president of the E University with a view to getting the president of the E University, thereby impairing the dignity of teachers; and (d) the Intervenor removed them respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant removal”). C.

The Intervenor appealed against the above removal disposition and claimed a review of appeal seeking revocation to the Defendant.

On July 22, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the removal of the instant disposition.

(hereinafter “Decision on Appeal to Teachers of this case”) D.

On August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the Defendant’s above decision. On February 29, 2016, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Plaintiff voluntarily revoked the instant disposition and decided to reinstate the Intervenor as of May 27, 2015, which was the date of the instant disposition.

E. On July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor B and D from office on the grounds of irregularities related to the business of the beautyia and injury to the teacher’s dignity due to a high-ranking teacher, etc., which were the grounds for the instant disposition against the Intervenor B and D. On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor C on the same grounds.

F. The intervenors appealed against each of the above dismissal dispositions and filed a petition review with the Defendant, and the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke each of the above dismissal dispositions against the Intervenor B and D on October 19, 2016, and against the Intervenor C on February 22, 2017.

G. On January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a dismissal disposition against the Defendant against the Intervenor B and D with the Seoul Administrative Court.