1. On January 31, 2012, the Defendant filed a petition for review against the Intervenor joining the Defendant (201-407).

1. Details of the decision;

A. On October 1, 1980, the Plaintiff was appointed as a teacher of C University established and operated under the Private School Act, and served as an assistant professor of the music university, and was promoted to the associate professor on April 1, 1984. The Plaintiff was promoted to the professor on April 1, 1989, and was in office as the principal of the music university from January 6, 2009.

B. The Intervenor violated the duty to maintain the dignity of the teachers as follows, and was subject to the disposition of February of the salary reduction in accordance with Article 61 of the Private School Act (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

(1) In 2009, C University Music College published a separate notice of recruitment of full-time teachers and part-time lecturers. With respect to the recruitment of part-time lecturers, the adoption of part-time instructors would impair the fairness of employment by employing a person who did not apply for part-time lecturers, even though he/she notified the applicants on August 7, 2009 by sending a notice to the full-time faculty meeting to proceed with the recruitment process only for those who passed the document screening pursuant to Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule on the New Employment of Music College Instructors.

(2) In the case of applying provisional injunction against the Intervenor, D submitted a witness statement to the court and disclosed the Intervenor’s internal secrets related to the recruitment of full-time faculty members, even though it is maintained in the security of the employment-related matters as the head of the music university and the examiner.

(hereinafter referred to as "grounds for the second disciplinary action").

On October 25, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disciplinary action and filed a petition review with the Defendant on October 25, 201. While the Defendant fully acknowledged the grounds for disciplinary action, the Plaintiff was required to submit a witness statement in order to clarify the substantive truth on the date of controversy over the fairness of the Intervenor’s public bond course in the case of the second disciplinary action, and the motive is considered.