1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates C University, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was appointed as an associate professor in the sports health management department at the above university on March 1, 2006, and is currently in service until now.

Since 2011, the author made plagiarism of plagiarism in 201 in 2011 and 4 of the thesis, among which the plagiarism in 2011 has expired, so the author excluded the subject of disciplinary action from the subject of disciplinary action.

In December 2012, the Intervenor published “D”, a master’s degree thesis, which was a guidance professor, as the thesis “E” in October 2013, as the thesis “E”, in which the Intervenor published “E” in F.

An intervenor has used the thesis of plagiarism as an associate professor re-contract research performance in September 1, 2015, and it is the ground for dismissal due to the lack of research performance for re-contract, excluding plagiarism.

This is a serious issue that constitutes a breach of good faith and a duty to maintain dignity due to research misconduct.

The thesis table of the professor must be eradicated and is an important matter that greatly affects society.

In addition to the thesis subject to disciplinary action, the intervenor confirmed that the thesis of plagiarism is more than four. There are no grounds for mitigation.

B. On July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff’s teachers’ personnel committee deliberated on the Intervenor’s request for disciplinary resolution, and on the same day, the Plaintiff’s request for disciplinary resolution on the Intervenor’s board of directors. On August 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s teachers’ disciplinary committee decided to dismiss the Intervenor on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disciplinary cause”).

C. On August 24, 2016, the Plaintiff, according to the above disciplinary resolution, was subject to disciplinary action against the intervenor, and the intervenor appealed against it and filed a petition review to the Defendant on September 23, 2016.

On November 23, 2016, the defendant could be considered as reasons for disciplinary action among the papers with plagiarism made by the intervenor on November 23, 2016, and the appointment period of the intervenor is only one.