1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision;

A. On March 1, 2012, the Plaintiff is a school juristic person B or below B.

) New appointment as assistant professor of a university affiliated with C University (contract term: from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2014) is a person who served as professor.

The Plaintiff spreaded facts without any basis on the following matters, thereby impairing the honor of the parties and schools:

- - The following:

1. In cases of the first-class D doctoral degree, the first-class D doctoral degree, the second-class E and F professor's thesis, the fact of data manipulation is asserted without any ground;

2. Intimidation that DD doctor, who worked in the previous autopsy school room, received rebates from DDR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "KDR"), a reagents company, would be entitled to legal measures against DDR and DDR.

3. Dissemination of false facts that G professors have purchased automobiles and clear bags using research funds;

4. Disseminating false facts that H and E professors ordered the suspension of trading with M on the ground of negative appraisal about I (the president of the previous industry-academic cooperation foundation);

5. A case in which researchers waive their research by verbal abuse, character and toxic language;

6. To express his/her opinion or doctoral degree courses to the Seoul J professor who is his/her faculty member and to express that there is serious data in his/her thesis.

7. Causing the danger that the re-examination problem may be set almost the same as the beginning problem and that the result of the re-examination of the successful applicant at the beginning may be higher than that of the successful applicant at the beginning time; and

B. On December 24, 2013, the president of the B took a disciplinary measure for three months of salary reduction for the Plaintiff on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). C.

On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition against the Defendant on the grounds that he/she was dissatisfied with the disposition of the president’s salary reduction for three months. However, on March 26, 2014, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that “Paragraph 5 of the grounds for disciplinary action was not recognized as grounds for disciplinary action on the grounds that occurred before the Plaintiff’s appointment, but all of the remaining grounds for disciplinary action are recognized as grounds for disciplinary action,