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. Details of the dismissal of the plaintiff and decision on the petition examination;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who establishes and operates C University (hereinafter “instant University”) and D School Foundation, and the Intervenor is appointed as a full-time lecturer belonging to the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation on March 1, 2009 and is appointed as an assistant professor on March 1, 2013.

B. On November 14, 2016, the president of the instant university (hereinafter “president”) formulated a plan for promotion and reappointment of full-time teachers of the first semester as well as a plan for promotion and reappointment on November 16, 2016, and requested the intervenors to submit data to be deliberated on by November 24, 2016.

C. On November 24, 2016, the Intervenor submitted a thesis of the title “E” (hereinafter “the instant thesis”) with the application for promotion along with the application for promotion to the instant university.

This paper is published in the thesis of the Korean Telecommunication Association on September 7, 2013, and is marked as F as the first author and the second author and the second author.

Around December 11, 2016, the Director General of the University (hereinafter referred to as the “Director General”) presented the e-mail stating “The results of deliberation by the teachers’ personnel committee for promotion and the guidance for procedural vindication,” stating that the Intervenor would be scheduled to review on the basis of explanatory materials from the next teachers’ personnel committee, and that “the results of deliberation by the teachers’ personnel committee for promotion and the guidance for procedural vindication” was presented to the Intervenor on December 14, 2016, based on Article 14 (Promotion Requirements) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teachers. On December 14, 2016, the Intervenor presented the plagiarism examination to the Intervenor at least 20 points of annual evaluation of the annual performance in exclusive charge of industry-academic cooperation. The Intervenor failed to submit an annual evaluation of the performance in exclusive charge of industry-academic cooperation and rejected the promotion due to his/her failure to promote.”