Plaintiff (Law Firm Oyn, Attorneys Jin-jin et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Architectural Urban Research Institute (LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Shin Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 12, 2014

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gahap3915 decided March 28, 2014

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

A. On April 5, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that dismissal against the Plaintiff is null and void.

B. From April 6, 2013 to the time the Plaintiff is reinstated, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 5,124,109 per month.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1-b. above may be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The defendant is an affiliated organization of the National Land Research Institute, which is a government-funded research institute established pursuant to the Act on the Establishment, Operation and Fostering of Government-Funded Research Institutes, and carries out research on the field of architectural city space as prescribed by Article 4 subparagraph 6 of the Articles of Incorporation of the National Land Research Institute. The plaintiff has worked as the defendant's side researcher from March 8 to April 5, 2010.

(b) Publication of employment and conclusion of appointment contracts;

1) On February 1, 2010, the Defendant published a recruitment notice to the effect that a doctorate holder in construction, urban design, and residential environment planning is employed as a defendant’s associate researcher. The main contents of the said employment notice are as follows.

⊙ 채용분야 및 자격기준

○○ holders of doctorate in the field related to residential environment planning (including prospective holders of doctorate before February 29, 2010): Person with practical experience in research in the field of residential environment planning; Person with experience in research in the field of residential environment planning.

⊙ 제출서류

· A letter of support

· one letter of self-introduction (written descriptions of the research experience in the relevant field, the areas desired for future research, the circulation, etc.);

· A doctoral degree thesis (including a national summary within 10p) and a copy of each major research performance (including a list)

* A person expected to obtain a doctor’s degree shall submit one copy of the thesis to be examined for degree or one copy of the thesis to be published in a major academic journal (including a national summary within 10P).

· One copy of each grade certificate (university and graduate school)

ㆍ 경력증명서 및 영어성적(토플, 토익, 텝스에 한함) 증명서(해당자에 한함) 각 1부

⊙ 전형방법(1차 서류전형 합격자에 한해 2차 전형자격 부여)

· Primary (document screening) type

· 2nd papers published, interview

2) The above recruitment announcement was supported by the said 15 holders including the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, at the time of support, submitted “(No. 1 omitted) thesis” (hereinafter “the instant thesis”) recognized as a doctor’s degree thesis by obtaining a doctor’s degree from ○ University on or around June 2009.

3) The Plaintiff was determined as the highest scorer through the primary document examination and the secondary interview examination. On March 8, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into an appointment contract with the Defendant with the term of appointment from March 8, 2010 to March 7, 2011, wherein the class is subordinate researchers. Since then, the Plaintiff entered into an appointment contract with the Defendant with each class as of March 8, 201 as of March 8, 201 to March 7, 2012; the term of appointment contract from March 8, 2011 to March 8, 2012 to which the terms of appointment should be changed or submitted to the person subject to disqualification. Article 5 of the above appointment contract, which was prepared as of March 8, 2012, provides for the term of appointment contract with each class as of March 201 to be changed or terminated.

(c) Ex officio dismissal;

1) On April 4, 2013, the Defendant held the 48th Personnel Committee and decided to terminate the appointment contract with the Plaintiff. The details of the above matters to be resolved are as follows.

According to the findings of the Special Investigation Committee on the Disposition of Related Persons based on the findings of the Special Investigation Committee No. 1 contained in the main text - According to the findings of the Special Investigation Committee, it is confirmed that a serious misconduct related to research ethics, such as the Plaintiff’s plagiarism, the replacement of a dissertation, the replacement of a dissertation, the replacement and replacement of a dissertation, and the request for change of the author at the time of recruitment of the Plaintiff. In particular, considering the fact that the replacement of a dissertation submitted at the time of recruitment of the Plaintiff was made, although the Plaintiff was aware of the terms and conditions of the contract specified in the appointment contract, it is difficult to see the Plaintiff’s intention to replace the dissertation as bona fide. 3. Accordingly, it is difficult to consider the fact that the replacement of the dissertation is made even though the Plaintiff was aware of the terms and conditions specified in the appointment contract, or all defects submitted by the appointed party at the time of appointment contract are discovered or changed, the director may recommend the appointment or termination of the contract based on the provision of the recommendation to cancel or termination of the contract.

2) Accordingly, on April 5, 2013, the Defendant issued a written notice of termination of the appointment contract as follows to the Plaintiff.

As a result of the discussions conducted by the personnel committee in the 47th and 48th in relation to the results of the survey on the Special Investigation Committee contained in the main text, I will determine ex officio dismissal under subparagraph 5 (State 1) of the terms of the appointment contract and Article 25 of the Personnel Management Regulations and notify the "cancellation of the appointment contract."

Note 1) Articles

D. Plaintiff’s objection

1) On April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant on April 11, 2013, stating that “the Plaintiff did not violate the terms and conditions of the appointment contract, and there was no occurrence of any event falling under Article 5 of the terms and conditions of the appointment contract and Article 25 of the Personnel Management Regulations, and thus, the Defendant’s notification of the termination of the appointment contract violates the Personnel Management Regulations or is unreasonable.”

2) On April 15, 2013, the Defendant held the 49th Personnel Committee and resolved on the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s objection. On April 17, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the appointment contract on the ground that there was no ground for revocation of ex officio dismissal pursuant to Article 5 of the terms of the appointment contract and Article 25 of the Personnel Management Regulations.

E. The Defendant’s personnel management rules relating to the instant case are as follows.

1. When a person whose work performance is extremely poor and who is deemed not to have changed his/her position; 4. When he/she causes an accident intentionally or by gross negligence; 6. When he/she causes an accident to the research institute; 6. When the documents submitted at the time of employment are found to have been dismissed or the person refuses to renew his/her financial guarantee certificate submitted at the time of employment is determined to be disqualified during his/her work period; 7. When he/she is determined to be disqualified during his/her work period;

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 through 7, 24 through 28, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff

1) The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of ex officio dismissal and termination of the appointment contract (hereinafter “instant dismissal”) and did not entirely state the grounds for dismissal in the notice, and thus, the instant dismissal was in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.

2) The Defendant cited that the instant thesis constitutes plagiarism as the ground for dismissal, and that the Plaintiff replaced the said thesis after employment. However, unlike ○○ University, the Special Investigation Committee or the Academic Council, which determined that the instant thesis was plagiarism, cannot be the subject of verification of research misconduct, and there is procedural defect in the investigation procedure, and the Plaintiff’s replacement of the thesis was merely a supplement of insufficient reference documents and quoted indication, and thus, it does not have any ground for dismissal as alleged by the Defendant.

3) Therefore, the dismissal of this case is null and void, and the defendant is dissatisfied with this, and thus, the defendant is entitled to seek the payment of wages calculated at the rate of KRW 5,124,109 per month from April 6, 2013, which is the day following the date of the dismissal of this case, to the time the plaintiff is reinstated.

B. Defendant

1) The Plaintiff had been specifically aware of the grounds for dismissal of this case since before the Defendant received the notice of termination of the above appointment contract from the Defendant, and exercised its right of defense by the Special Investigation Committee, etc., the Defendant shall be deemed to have complied with the duty of written notification under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.

2) The Plaintiff’s act of replacing the thesis of this case submitted at the time of employment in order to conceal plagiarism, even if the thesis of this case does not constitute a thesis of plagiarism, constitutes a ground for the Plaintiff’s act of replacing the thesis of this case to the extent that it is not possible to continue employment by social norms, and thus, there is justifiable reason for dismissal of this case.

3. Determination on the claim for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The plagiarism filing of the instant thesis and the background leading up to the replacement of the said thesis

A) At the time when the Plaintiff entered the Defendant, the Defendant’s director was Nonparty 1, a guidance professor for the instant thesis, but part of the Defendant’s employees raised plagiarism suspicion against Nonparty 1 on March 2012.

B) On April 2012, Nonparty 1 suggested that the Plaintiff revise and supplement the plagiarism-related part of the thesis of this case, which was raised by Nonparty 1, and asked the Plaintiff about the procedure related to ○ University. Nonparty 1 revised the thesis of this case by adding 60 reference documents and quoted marks. Nonparty 1 submitted the revised doctorate thesis (hereinafter “instant revised thesis”) directly to the National Library of Korea, the National Assembly Library, the National Assembly Library, and the Library of ○ University on April 16, 2012.

C) In the process of replacing the above thesis, the Plaintiff used the research paper written around June 2009, when acquiring a doctor’s degree. Nonparty 1 obtained prior consent from three examiners of other thesis through Nonparty 1, but did not obtain prior consent from Nonparty 2, the Chairperson of the Review Committee, who was residing in the United States at the time of the change of the thesis (afterward Nonparty 2 and five examiners, including Nonparty 2, consented to the use of the existing research paper in the process of examining the plagiarism of ○○ University’s thesis as seen earlier (a written confirmation from August 20, 2012).

D) In addition, on May 10, 2012, Nonparty 1: (a) the Korea Urban Design Association published at his author on December 2006, Nonparty 1: (b) was a thesis that was jointly studied and written with the Plaintiff; and (c) requested Nonparty 1 to revise the Plaintiff to the joint author; and (d) made a request for the correction of the publication to the Plaintiff on February 5, 2012 and March 29, 2012.

2) Audit results of the Office of Prime Minister and establishment of the Defendant’s Special Investigation Committee

A) The Prime Minister’s office: (a) when Nonparty 1’s complaint was committed and the suspicion of plagiarism was raised from some members of the Defendant; (b) around May 2012, upon conducting a special audit on the Defendant; and (c) sent the Defendant a written request for disposition of plagiarism to the Defendant on June 27, 2012; and (d) among them, the details relating to the suspicion of plagiarism in the instant thesis are as follows.

6. Notice of improper interventions in the thesis revision by the head of the research institute in accordance with the results of the request for review of plagiarism and the result of the request for review of improvement of a doctoral degree thesis - 8. Disposition according to the results of the request for review on whether the author of the revised thesis was illegal in April 2012 and the result of the request for review (Plaintiff)

B) On July 31, 2012, the Defendant held a personnel committee to set up a Special Investigation Committee to find out facts about the suspicion of plagiarism and related circumstances of the instant thesis, and accordingly, on August 1, 2012, the Special Investigation Committee comprised of five members, including the Defendant’s researchers, was established.

C) On August 2, 2012, the Defendant posted a notice on the internal bulletin board so that the Defendant can see the facts regarding the composition and operation of the said Special Investigation Committee.

3) Review of plagiarism by ○ University

A) The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology submitted a petition for plagiarism suspicion to some employees of the Defendant’s instant thesis. On May 10, 2012, the said petition case was transferred to ○ University graduate school, a doctorate institution.

B) The ○ University constituted an investigative committee pursuant to the Regulations on the Verification and Disposal of the Truth of Research Ethics (hereinafter “Research Ethics Regulations”) enacted on November 10, 2006, and investigated whether the instant thesis and the instant revised thesis are self-saving and others’ marks, and on November 19, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant on November 19, 2012: (a) it is difficult to deem that the concept of self-mark was established to the extent that the overall justification of the instant thesis completed in 2009, and (b) the instant thesis and the instant revised thesis do not fall under the “research misconduct” as referred to in Article 4(1)3 of the Research Ethics Regulations, and notified the research committee’s findings that they do not fall under the “research supplementary act” as referred to in Article 4(2)5 of the Research Ethics Regulations. The contents of the research report and the relevant provisions of the Research Ethics Regulations attached thereto at the time of notification are as follows:

(2) “The acts of those to be polleded in accordance with the main sentence of plagiarism” and “the acts of those to be polleded in the plagiarism report - It is true that a significant portion of the research paper is used without plagiarism 3 or Chapter 4. The cited part is also a lot of factual contents for the introduction of theories, but it is not a quoted part of the research paper without plagiarism. - In light of the characteristics of those to be polled and the contents of the thesis, it is judged that it is not a problem to cite the research in the following thesis by citing the theoretical background of the previous research contents of those to be polled in this case and by using them in the field of construction plan. It is also difficult to view that there are many cases where some of those to be polled were omitted in a master’s or doctor’s degree, unlike the published part of the paper.”

(4) a request for an examination by the Special Investigation Committee on Academic Organizations and the result thereof;

A) Around November 2012, the Defendant’s Special Investigation Committee requested the Council of Academic Organizations to examine the plagiarism of the instant thesis. As a result of the examination of the instant revised thesis, the Council of Academic Organizations submitted a written opinion that, on December 6, 2012, the instant revised thesis “(3 omitted)” (2005), the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s degree, and Nonparty 1’s author “(1 omitted)” (201) and “(2007)” (207).

B) The part determined as plagiarism among the instant revised thesis by the Academic Council is as shown in attached Form 1. The main contents of the opinions of the Academic Council are as follows.

plagiarism is deemed to be very serious level of plagiarism, which consists of plagiarism levels as a whole plagiarism level - plagiarism level - plagiarism level 1 plagiarism level as a whole, plagiarism level - In particular, Chapters 3 and 4 of the doctor’s degree thesis - It is no choice but to regard research ethics as irrelevant to research ethics. - In consideration of the 98 pages, 138 pages and the premise that guidance professors’ practice and guidance professors’ license were granted, i.e., plagiarism level 1 through plagiarism level 1 through plagiarism level , 1 through 10 originals - 1 through 10 originals , 1 through 1 through 100 originals , 1 through 180 originals - 1 through 10 originals , 1 through 180 originals - 1 through 5 originals plagiarism level , 1 through 185 originals - through 1 through 180 originals plagiarism level - 71 through 185 originals plagiarism level.

5) To investigate and report the results of the Special Investigation Committee.

A) On February 8, 2013 and February 14, 2013, the Special Investigation Committee sent to the Plaintiff questions on the time and reasons for the replacement of the thesis, whether Nonparty 2’s prior approval of the replacement of the associate book twice, Nonparty 1’s request and reason for the replacement of the associate book, and the Plaintiff’s demand for the replacement of the joint author of Nonparty 1 teaching papers, and the source of the author’s book that the Plaintiff is a joint author. On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a written answer to each of the above questions to the Special Investigation Committee.

B) On March 29, 2013, the Special Investigation Committee submitted a report to the Personnel Committee, and the main contents thereof are as follows.

According to the main text of the plagiarism, the authority of ○ University to decide whether to use the dissertation for the purpose of the plagiarism is recognized only when the plagiarism is not recognized. However, according to the academic community council and slope research ethics rules, it is recognized that the unauthorized Use of the dissertation was actually conducted without substantial permission for the subject of the plagiarism. It is not limited to the relevant dissertation where the subject of the plagiarism is the subject of the plagiarism, but also limited to the entire paper of the plagiarism. Even if the doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s doctor’s consent to replace the dissertation for the plagiarism.

6) Hearing the Plaintiff’s statement by the personnel committee

A) On April 1, 2013, the Defendant held the 47th Personnel Committee to review the outcome of the Special Investigation Committee’s report, and decided to determine matters to be disposed of after hearing the Plaintiff’s statement from the 48th Personnel Committee. On April 2, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the attendance at the 48th Personnel Committee.

B) On April 4, 2013, the Plaintiff appeared at the personnel committee on the fourth 48th 4th 2013. The chairman of the said personnel committee on behalf of the chairman of the said personnel committee clearly stated that “to ask the Plaintiff questions and answer with respect to the findings of the investigation by the Special Investigation Committee,” and confirmed whether to submit a reply related to the investigation by the Special Investigation Committee, and changes in the position related to the reply, and confirmed that there was no additional explanation by the Plaintiff.

C) On April 4, 2013, after completing the above procedure, the personnel committee decided to terminate the appointment contract with the Plaintiff. On April 5, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant dismissal.

7) Submission, etc. of the Plaintiff’s explanation to the relevant institution

A) After the Plaintiff’s suspicion of plagiarism had been raised and the audit results of the Prime Minister’s Office have been notified, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted to ○ University a reply on August 25, 2012, “Written plagiarism for the disturbance of plagiarism” around June 2012, “written plagiarism”, “written plagiarism”, and “written plagiarism” on August 25, 2012. The content was mainly against the suspicion of plagiarism of the instant thesis.

B) On January 29, 2013, after the notice of the result of the investigation of the ○ University, the Plaintiff sent a letter requesting Nonparty 3 to complete the investigation by the Special Investigation Committee and take fair personnel measures.

C) In addition, on April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the National Examination Board requesting the Defendant to promptly and fairly conclude the instant thesis. The Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the aforementioned civil petition with details as to the filing of a petition for plagiarism and the process of the special investigation committee and its investigation.

8) Plaintiff’s master’s degree thesis and the title of the thesis of this case

Meanwhile, the title of the Plaintiff’s master’s degree thesis is as shown in Attached 2., and the title of the thesis of this case is as listed in Attached 3.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, Eul's evidence Nos. 10 through 16, 19 through 32, and 39, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Whether the procedure of the dismissal of the instant case was procedural defect

1) Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, in order for an employer to dismiss a worker, the employer shall be notified in writing of the grounds for and time of the dismissal. This means that the employer shall be careful in dismissing the worker through written notification of the grounds for dismissal, etc., and the dispute surrounding the existence and time of dismissal and the reason thereof shall be resolved in an appropriate and easy manner, and the worker shall also be able to properly respond to the dismissal. Thus, the employer shall be able to clearly understand the reasons for the dismissal in the location of the worker when the employer notifies in writing of the grounds for dismissal (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da42324, Oct. 27, 201, etc.).

2) Based on the above legal doctrine, the notice of termination of the appointment contract sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on April 5, 2012 is merely stating that “as a result of discussions conducted by the 47th and 48 personnel committee with respect to the findings of the Special Investigation Committee, the Plaintiff’s violation of the terms of the contract is verified, the appointment contract shall be dismissed ex officio under subparagraph 5 of the terms of the contract and Article 25 of the Personnel Management Regulations, and shall be notified of the termination of the appointment contract,” and it does not indicate specific grounds for dismissal.

However, the facts acknowledged earlier and the evidence revealed as follows, i.e., the Plaintiff’s application for a civil petition to the same effect as the Defendant’s non-plagiarism, which was presented at the time of the Plaintiff’s support as the Defendant’s vice-research members, was pointed out to be subject to a special audit of the Prime Minister’s Office of plagiarism, and subsequently, the Plaintiff’s disposition against the Plaintiff was necessary based on the results of the review on the thesis of this case. The Defendant separately organized the Special Investigation Committee and posted it on the Defendant’s internal bulletin board to reveal the suspicion of plagiarism, etc. of the thesis of this case. The Plaintiff actively coped with the Plaintiff’s submission of explanatory statements, etc. to ○○ University, which conducted an investigation by the Special Investigation Committee, and requested the Defendant to conclude the investigation by the Special Investigation Committee and take fair personnel measures, and the Special Investigation Committee requested the Plaintiff to examine whether the thesis of this case was plagiarism separately from the examination by the ○ University, and the Plaintiff was also aware of the Plaintiff’s response to the instant thesis of this case’s assignment.

C. Existence of grounds for dismissal of the instant case

1) The Defendant asserts that the instant thesis is a thesis of plagiarism and that the Plaintiff replaced the said thesis after the appointment constitutes “when any defect is discovered or the content of all the documents submitted by the appointed party at the time of appointment is modified” or “when any illegality is discovered in the documents submitted at the time of employment” under Article 25 subparag. 6 of the Personnel Management Regulations, on the grounds that Article 5 of the Employment Contract provides that “The instant thesis constitutes a thesis of plagiarism, and thus, whether there is defect or illegality in the documents submitted at the time of employment, and ② whether the Plaintiff’s content of the documents submitted at the time of appointment can be deemed as changed by the replacement of the said thesis

2) Existence of grounds for dismissal on the ground of plagiarism of the instant thesis

A) Whether this case’s thesis is plagiarism

The plaintiff used a significant portion of his master's degree thesis in Chapters 3 and 4 of the thesis of this case without citing a significant portion of his master's degree thesis. Among them, the factual and general contents for the introduction of theories are many, but the contents of the analysis contents are also included in the paper of this case, and the facts that the thesis of this case used parts without citing the author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's paper

(1) The research ethics evaluation standard of research reports in 2012, which was published on July 7, 2013 by the Economic and Social Research Council established pursuant to the Act on the Establishment, Operation and Fostering of Government-Funded Research Institutes, Etc., and the research ethics evaluation standard of research reports in 2012, which was recorded in the case book (Evidence No. 17), provides that the act of unfairly using another’s copyrighted works or ideas, other than general knowledge in the pertinent field, as one’s own act without indicating the fact of publication of the copyrighted works identical or similar to the copyrighted works it has already published (this research ethics evaluation standard was not enacted at the time of June 2009 by the Plaintiff’s doctor’s degree in the instant thesis, but it seems that it conforms to the concept of “re-published” and “re-publication No. 2).

The part of the thesis of this case used by the Plaintiff without citing the author’s written author by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 in this case without citing the author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’

【○ University’s Research Ethics Regulations, which was enforced around June 2009 by the Plaintiff’s doctor’s degree, provided that “a table” was a type of research misconduct, and used another’s idea, research content, and result without legitimate approval or acceptance. In relation to the act of using his previous research findings, it merely provided “an act seriously deviating from the scope of research ethics applicable to the pertinent research field” as one of the types of research misconduct without clearly stipulating it as one type of research misconduct. The ○ University’s Research Committee determined that the Plaintiff’s act of using Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1’s research journal did not constitute “the Plaintiff’s act of using Nonparty 1’s master’s degree or research journal” as one of the type of research misconduct. Based on the above research ethics provision, the Plaintiff’s research research committee determined that the Plaintiff’s act in the research field at the time of publication of this case’s thesis and the content of this case’s thesis, the Plaintiff’s unauthorized acceptance of the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s degree did not constitute “the Plaintiff’s act of research ethics or Nonparty 1’s research journal.”

Unlike the above, the academic community council, which examined the Defendant’s request, on the basis of the instant thesis or the instant revised thesis, expressed that the instant thesis or the instant revised thesis is “a very serious type of plagiarism, which constitutes a whole plagiarism level, plagiarism level, and simple plagiarism level.” However, without considering the research ethics standard and the details of the pertinent research field at the time of the preparation of the instant thesis and the importance of the instant thesis in the entire paper, it cannot be readily concluded that the instant thesis falls under plagiarism or duplicate publication. However, the said thesis or the instant revised thesis was written mainly in line with the literature subject to plagiarism, and it does not seem to have been written under full consideration of the aforementioned overall circumstances.

(v) the portion determined by the Council of Academic Organizations as plagiarism is the portion that the Plaintiff used his master’s degree thesis without indicating the source. In the event that scholars publish a subsequent thesis, it cannot avoid any overlap with the previous research content. As such, the subsequent thesis is an important factor in determining whether there is a new subject or discussion that does not have an independent value in the previous study, and the concept of “duplal publication” is also required to be identical or substantially similar to the subsequent work. However, the Plaintiff’s master’s degree thesis is intended for the analysis of the subject and the subject of the Plaintiff’s master’s degree, namely, derived the structural characteristics of the surrounding space, the unique nature of the “water city” and its factors of the “water city,” while this paper analyzes the spatial structure of friendly residence as a subject of analysis, and adjusts the contents of the plan to include the subject and the direction of the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s master’s degree as a friendly language for the development of friendly residence, and thus it is difficult to see that the subject of this case’s thesis overlaps with the subject of this case.

⑹ 또한 타인의 저서를 적절한 출처 표시 없이 사용한 부분이 일부 존재한다고 하더라도 그 부분이 논문 전체에서 차지하는 비중과 의미를 고려하지 않고 그 논문 전체를 표절 논문이라고 할 수 없는바, 원고가 이 사건 수정논문으로 출처 표시를 보완한 부분이 60여 곳에 이르기는 하나, 원고가 포괄적·개괄적으로나마 출처를 표시하여(이러한 출처 표시가 충분한 출처 표시가 될 수 없음은 물론이다) 원고에게 타인의 저작물을 도용하려는 의도가 있었던 것으로는 보이지 않는 점, 소외 1이 자신의 저서 저술과정에 원고가 참여하였다고 주장하고 있어 적어도 소외 1 저서의 표절이 문제되는 부분은 타인의 연구내용·결과를 정당한 승인 없이 도용하는 행위를 ‘표절’로 규정한 ○○대학교의 연구윤리규정에는 반하지 않는다고 볼 여지가 있는 점, 일본 저자들 저서의 표절이 문제되는 부분 중에는 사실적 기술 부분도 상당 부분 포함되어 있는 점 등을 고려하면 이 사건 논문은 전체적으로 볼 때 표절 논문이라고 볼 수 없다.

B) Whether the documents submitted at the time of employment were defective or defective

Article 5 of the appointment contract providing that "when defects are discovered in all documents submitted by the person to be appointed in the course of employment" or Article 25 subparagraph 6 of the Defendant's Personnel Management Regulations stating false academic background, career, research performance, etc. in the application submitted by the person to be dismissed at the time of appointment, where various certificates submitted at the time of employment are fabricated or certification is cancelled, and where it is found that the authenticity of documents submitted by the person to be appointed cannot be guaranteed, such as where a doctoral degree thesis submitted at the time of employment is revealed as plagiarism, etc., it shall be deemed to be a provision to resolve the employment relationship with the person to be appointed. As seen above, this case's paper, which is a document submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of employment, shall not be deemed as plagiarism or duplicate publication, and as long as ○○ University, which was a doctoral degree granting institution, did not take measures such as cancelling a doctor's degree at the time of employment, etc., it shall not be deemed to constitute "when the documents submitted at the time of employment relationship with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff."

(iii) the existence of grounds for dismissal on account of the replacement of the thesis

A) The Plaintiff’s assertion of plagiarism had been raised and submitted to the relevant agency by preparing a revised thesis of this case containing 60 additional descriptions of sources after the Plaintiff raised suspicions of plagiarism. However, Article 5 of the employment contract providing for “when the content of the documents submitted by the appointed party is modified” as the grounds for termination of the appointment contract is the provision to resolve employment relationships in the event that the basis for the examination of appointment is modified due to a change in the content of the documents submitted by the appointed party. However, the thesis of this case and the revised thesis of this case are the reinforcement of the origin indication and do not have any substantial change. Thus, it is difficult to view that this constitutes grounds for termination of the appointment contract under Article 5 of the employment

B) In addition, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s act of replacing the above thesis constitutes a cause attributable to the employee to the extent that the employer could not continue to maintain an employment relationship by social norms, and that the Plaintiff’s act of concealing the plagiarism’s plagiarism constitutes a cause attributable to the employee. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the written evidence Nos. 10 and 14 as follows: (i) the replacement of the above thesis was led by Nonparty 1, who was the Defendant’s complaint and the Plaintiff’s leader at the time of the replacement (the Nonparty 1 sought the relevant procedure to ○ University; the Plaintiff printed the revised thesis on behalf of the Plaintiff). At the time of the replacement of the above thesis, there was no institutional device for the time of replacing the dissertation; and (ii) the procedure and criteria for submitting the revised thesis to the Library was not clearly established, the Defendant’s assertion that there was no reason to deem that the Plaintiff could not continue an employment relationship merely on the ground that the revised thesis was prepared and submitted to the relevant institution.

4) Therefore, the instant dismissal is null and void as there is no justifiable ground for dismissal.

4. Determination on the claim for wages

As long as the dismissal of this case is null and void, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the wages that the Plaintiff would have received if not the dismissal of this case. According to the evidence No. 6, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the wages that the Plaintiff would have received. According to the evidence No. 6, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff wages calculated at the rate of KRW 5,124,109 per month from April 6, 2013, to the date of the dismissal of this case (i.e., annual salary of KRW 61,489,310 x less than KRW 1/12, and less than KRW).

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal shall be accepted and the defendant

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) As seen earlier means Article 5 of the Appointment Contract. The same shall apply hereinafter.

2) Although the concept of duplicate publication cannot be deemed to coincide with the concept of self-defense, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s use of a master’s degree thesis is not duplicate publication, but self-plagiarism is a problem in that reuse of one’s work, other than another’s work, is discussed or mixed.