1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) established and operated a college of C University’s medical science. On September 1, 2008, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as an assistant professor of C University’s S University’s Sc University’s breast science science class, and served concurrently as a doctor with the DNA hospital chest’s chest outside of the hospital operated by the Intervenor.

B. On December 23, 2013, the Intervenor Council passed a resolution on the request for a mid-term disciplinary decision and removal from position regarding the Plaintiff’s act as follows. On February 4, 2014, the Intervenor Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee passed a resolution on one-month disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act as seen below constitutes a disciplinary cause under Article 61(1) of the Private School Act.

Accordingly, on February 20, 2014, an intervenor took a one-month disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disciplinary measure”).

A person subject to disciplinary action is a person who is in office with the chest outside of the D Hospital under the control of the chest outside science class of C University's medical college.

① On October 4, 2013, around 08:05, a female patient E, who was born at the above hospital operation room, participated in the heart surgery for a female patient E, and the size and type of the tubes to be used in the anesthesia in the anesthesia process for the surgery of the above patient, were carried out two times using the tubes in accordance with the opinion of the person subject to disciplinary action under the upper limit of appraisal due to conflict with the anesthesia professor, but when the two times of air leakage, the person subject to disciplinary action was unable to perform the surgery under such circumstances. Thus, even if the professor of the anesthesia pain department who was in company and G professor, the defect in the process of performing the surgery again after a temporary rest in order to protect a patient suffering from a general anesthesia, the person subject to disciplinary action must unilaterally declare the suspension of the surgery, notwithstanding the recommendation, and take measures, such as directly explaining the patient protection to the patient as the suspension of the surgery.