1. The defendant

A. As to KRW 12,592,360 among them and KRW 2,592,360 among them, the Plaintiff shall be fully paid from November 23, 2016 to Plaintiff A.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant was established on December 19, 2003 by the Industrial Education Enhancement and Industry-Academia-Research Cooperation Promotion Act and the school juristic person D articles of incorporation, and is a juristic person in charge of affairs concerning Cuniversity industry-academic cooperation.

B. On October 1, 2005, Plaintiff A was employed as a contractual employee as a full-time employee on September 1, 2007, and worked in a business incubator. Plaintiff B was employed as a full-time employee on March 12, 2012, and was converted into a fixed-term contract employee on May 1, 2012. From March 1, 2013, Plaintiff A served as an in-service contracting employee as an in-service industry-academic cooperation planning team, on-the-job training center, business start-up education support center, and cooperative social and economic support center.

C. On February 26, 2015, the Defendant Disciplinary Committee decided on the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff B on the ground of “violation of the duty to hold concurrent offices” against the Plaintiff on the ground of “violation of the duty to hold concurrent offices,” and accordingly, dismissed the Plaintiffs on March 6, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) D.

(1) On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an application for remedy against the dismissal of the instant case with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission, and on June 3, 2015, the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated the duty to hold a concurrent office, but the amount of disciplinary action is too harsh.”

(2) On June 25, 2015, the Defendant appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On September 9, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground.

(3) On May 19, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a new trial ruling with the Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap75718, which was dissatisfied with the above new trial ruling, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on the ground that the dismissal of the instant case goes beyond the scope of discretionary authority as it considerably loses validity under the social norms and thus is unlawful.