1. On May 13, 2015, the Defendant’s revocation of revocation of the revocation of a 2015-142 dismissed between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a legal entity operating the C University, and the Plaintiff was changed to the name of the E Department from March 1, 2007 at C University graduate School on May 1, 2013.

A person who has served as an assistant professor is a person.

B. On January 13, 2015, the Intervenor demanded a resolution on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff. On January 20, 2015, the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff traded money with the affiliated department and received unfair income deduction in the name of the Plaintiff on the development fund paid by the students.

Accordingly, the intervenor dismissed the plaintiff on January 27, 2015.

C. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant removal disposition. However, on May 13, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the petition review request on the grounds that the grounds for disciplinary action was recognized and the disciplinary action is reasonable (hereinafter “instant decision”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision of this case is legitimate

A. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is against the Plaintiff’s recognition of all the grounds for disciplinary action, the borrowing of money from the graduate students is not a monetary receipt related to his/her duties, but a loan by his/her personal parents, and the current repayment of the borrowed money, etc., the disciplinary action of deprivation of the Plaintiff’s status is too excessive and abuse of discretion.

B. Where disciplinary action is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a judge and staff member due to grounds for disciplinary action under the Private School Act, what kind of action should be taken at the discretion of the person having authority to take disciplinary action, but the disciplinary action which the person having authority to take disciplinary action as the exercise of discretion has remarkably lost validity by social norms.