1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is an educational foundation under the Private School Act that establishes and operates the C University (hereinafter “instant University”). The Plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer with the Indoor Building Department at C University on March 1, 1993 after the Plaintiff married with D in March 1, 1993, and was working as a professor from April 1, 2006.

The plaintiff clearly violated Article 23 (Duty of Fidelity), Article 24 (Duty of Good Faith), and Article 25 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teachers by performing an influorous act that may not be easily seen as a female student E (the age of 22) and a woman’s guest, who is his own, after the opening of a meeting in a laboratory.

In addition, due to such unforeseen incidents, the faculty members in the school (the faculty members of the department, the faculty members' meeting, the students' school members, the external instructors, the graduates, etc.) and the father of the reporter and his/her affiliated persons, Seoul Sexual Violence Counseling Center, the Song-gu Police Station, the major media companies, etc. have significantly known the fact that the facts related to the study, which have to transfer the students to the right direction and maintain the high social morality than any other institution.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant misconduct”). B.

On May 4, 2012, an intervenor removed the Plaintiff from office on the following grounds:

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

On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant decision and filed a petition review seeking revocation of the said disposition to the Defendant.

However, on August 27, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s above petition review claim.

(See Evidence No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the "decision of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 disciplinary procedure is unlawful.