1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On July 8, 2015, the Defendant between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant on July 8, 2015.

1. Facts that there is no dispute over the details of the decision (based on recognition), Gap 1, Eul 1, two (including branch numbers for those with virtual numbers), and the purport of all pleadings;

A. On March 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer at B University established and operated by the school juristic person C (hereinafter “instant University”). On April 1, 2004, the Plaintiff was promoted as an associate professor on March 1, 2008, as an associate professor on March 1, 2008, and as a professor at the computer department on March 1, 2013, and worked at the instant University.

B. On April 10, 2015, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) repeated the Plaintiff’s sexual harassment and sexual indecent act against female students who belong to the following department on several occasions as follows: Article 61(1) of the Private School Act (Grounds and Types of Disciplinary Action) (1) of the Private School Act (Article 61(1) of the Private School Act) ① When a teacher of a private school falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the person who has the authority to appoint the relevant teacher must request a resolution of disciplinary action and take disciplinary action according to the result of a resolution of disciplinary action

1. Where he performs an act contrary to the teacher's principal portion in violation of this Act and other education-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

2. When he violates or neglects his duties;

3. When he/she commits an act detrimental to the dignity of a teacher regardless of whether he/she is on or off duty.

“The date the Plaintiff was dismissed on the ground of its dismissal (the effective date is April 14, 2015; hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”). As seen subsequent to the victim, sexual harassment, etc. cited as the grounds for the instant disciplinary action is not recognized, and it is not appropriate to refer the relevant female students to “victim” for the sake of convenience. However, the relevant female students will be appointed as “victim.”

D ① On December 17, 2014, the Plaintiff, at the computer department office, was in the victim with male-child room on December 17, 2014, called “I ambied”, “I ambied, I ambied,” and “I ambied, I ambiated,” and “I ambiated, I ambiated, I ambiated, and I ambi

(2).