1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff added or renewed at the court of first instance, since it is the same as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding or adding the judgment as follows. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Part 2, “after review,” “after review,” “after the second page 17,” “in accordance with Article 14,” “in accordance with Article 6 and the sixth page 7 below the sixth page 7, “after December 14, 2012,” respectively, shall be construed as “after review,” and “after review,” respectively.

제9쪽 제12행부터 제16행까지의 ‘1)’부분을 아래와 같이 고쳐 쓴다. 1) 실체적 하자 원고 논문은 일본 C 교육의 성립과정을 고찰하는 사적(史的)논문이자 종설논문(기존의 이론이나 연구 성과, 문헌상의 정보를 정리하고 개괄하는 논문)으로서 역사적 사실관계는 저자에 따라 달라질 수 없어서 일부 부분이 E의 이 사건 저서의 내용과 유사할 뿐이고, 한편으로 원고는 당시 교육학계에서 널리 통용되던 내주(內註) 방식을 사용하여 출처를 명시하였고 다만 연속하여 인용한 부분에 일부 출처 표시를 누락하였으나 참고문헌에 이 사건 저서를 표시하였다.

At the time when the plaintiff acquired a doctoral degree, the plaintiff applied the current standards for plagiarism.

Considering all these points, the Plaintiff’s thesis is not plagiarism.

Part 9, 20 to 22, 'B' of the 9th one, shall be applied as follows:

B. According to Article 19 of the Regulation on Research Ethics of B University, the defendant requested the plaintiff to appear in writing at least twice, etc., and thus the defendant violated the above provision to guarantee the defendant's right to defense by requesting only once to appear.

from 11. Beginning 9.