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. Basic facts and the circumstances surrounding the instant decision

A. The Plaintiff foundation is a school foundation that establishes and operates C University (hereinafter “instant University”).

B. The Intervenor was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer at D University (hereinafter “C University”) on March 1, 2001 as a part-time lecturer with the traffic design division (hereinafter “C University”) and was promoted as an assistant professor on April 1, 2003 and on October 1, 2007, respectively.

C. On June 21, 2006, the university of this case revised school regulations to abolish the visual information design department, and on February 28, 2008, the Plaintiff corporation made an action for dismissal against the Intervenor (hereinafter “the first action for dismissal”) against the Intervenor on the ground that the department to which the Intervenor belongs was closed.

On October 21, 2010, the intervenor filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the first dismissal disposition and payment of an amount equivalent to wages with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Da107731, and the above court rendered a judgment ordering the payment of an amount equivalent to wages, on the ground that the first dismissal disposition, which is based on the premise that the closure of the department was lawfully made, was null and void without deliberation by the professor Association, on the ground that the amendment to school regulations that the university of this case discontinued with the visual information design, was null and void. On the ground that the first dismissal disposition, which is based on the premise that the closure of the department was lawfully made, was null and void. The appeal (Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na58963) and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da45481) against the part to be invalidated, was all dismissed, and the above judgment became final

E. On September 2010, the Plaintiff Company amended its school regulations by supplementing the procedures such as the deliberation of the Teaching Council around September 2010, and then made a new amendment to the said regulations. On March 31, 2013, the Plaintiff Company’s dismissal against the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”).

AB made it.

F. The Intervenor filed a petition against the Defendant on March 29, 2013 against the instant disposition of dismissal, and the Defendant converted and posted the Intervenor to another department on the grounds as follows on June 24, 2013.