1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer at C University on April 1, 1989 and was appointed as C University assistant professor on April 1, 1991.

After that, the Plaintiff was appointed as professor of the D University on March 1, 2006 through the professor of the D University, and on February 29, 2012, the Plaintiff retired from office.

B. Meanwhile, around October 2007, the Plaintiff published the book "E", and around November 7, 2007, sent the book to the head of the Gwangju District Court's Netcheon Branch.

C. On February 19, 2008, the president of the National University: (a) deemed that the publication and dispatch of the Plaintiff, who is an incumbent professor of the National University, was in violation of the duty to maintain dignity on the ground that the Plaintiff breached his/her duty to maintain dignity on the grounds that the publication and dispatch of the said books by the Plaintiff, who is the current professor of the National University, damaged the honor of the parties; (b) undermined the trust of the people

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

(a) In the case of a revocation suit, the administrative agency which has taken the disposition, etc. shall be the defendant unless otherwise provided for in other Acts;

(1) Article 13(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act (Article 13(1) of the same Act). The Plaintiff sought the revocation of the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff by seeking the revocation of the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff by the president of B University without having the Defendant as the president of B University. Thus, the instant lawsuit against the Plaintiff without standing

B. Demanding revocation of the disciplinary action against the president of B University constitutes a performance suit that does not constitute an administrative litigation under Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, not an appeal litigation under Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, unless there are legal grounds otherwise.

However, under the interpretation of the current Administrative Litigation Act, any other form of administrative litigation is not allowed except as provided in Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992).

Therefore, this case.