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 decision;

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates C University at the Cheongju-si.

An intervenor was appointed as a branch of a college of education and a full-time lecturer on March 1, 2002, and was promoted to an associate professor on April 1, 2004, and was promoted to an associate professor on April 1, 2008, and was in the position of the president of Cuniversity from December 19, 2008 to January 31, 2009 (the intervenor expressed his/her intention to resign from his/her position as the president on December 22, 2008), and returned to a branch education and an associate professor on February 1, 2009.

B. On January 24, 2011, an intervenor in the past is subject to removal from his/her position on the ground that a disciplinary decision was requested by the Plaintiff as a ground for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the first removal from position”).

(2) On March 15, 201, the Intervenor filed a petition for review on the revocation of the respective dispositions against the Defendant on March 15, 2011, and the Defendant filed a petition for review on the revocation of the respective dispositions against the Defendant. On June 13, 2011, Articles 1, 2, 3, 7, and 7, and 8 of the Attached Disciplinary Grounds are deemed grounds for disciplinary action, but the remaining 4, 5, and 6 are not deemed grounds for disciplinary action, and the first removal is lawful, but the first removal is excessive, and the Defendant dismissed the petition for revocation of the first removal from position and rendered a decision on the alteration to the removal from office.

3) The intervenor filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking the revocation of the above decision with this court. On June 14, 2012, the court rendered a judgment that dismissed the application for revocation of the first removal from position and changed the defendant's decision into the dismissal of the first removal from position and rendered a judgment that revoked the above decision on the ground that the defendant's decision was deviates from and abused discretion (201Guhap 19710, the defendant appealed against the above judgment, and therefore, Article 3, 3, 7 of the Attached Disciplinary Grounds which the defendant recognized as grounds for disciplinary action cannot be recognized as grounds for disciplinary action.