1. On May 18, 2016, the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of dismissal disposition No. 2016-213 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

On December 1, 2002, the Plaintiff established and operated C University, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was newly appointed as C University’s full-time faculty member (hereinafter referred to as the “instant University”) from January 7, 2008 to March 4, 2013, and served as the Chief of the Department of Education of the said University from January 7, 2008 to March 4, 2013, and was concurrently serving as the Chief of the Department of Education from June 27, 2009 to March 5, 2013.

On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee to decide on a disciplinary action against the Intervenor. On February 19, 2016, the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Intervenor on the grounds as follows.

Accordingly, on February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the intervenor that he/she was punished by dismissal on the grounds of the above disciplinary reasons.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal disposition” (hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal disposition”) . 1. An intervenor who received money from an external institution related to his/her duties (hereinafter referred to as “Disciplinary Reason 1”) violated the duty of integrity by accepting money and valuables worth KRW 14,264,07 per month from January 201 to March 2013 from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) which is an external contracting entity related to his/her duties.

2. An intervenor who disclosed personal information documents without approval (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”) submitted to the Defendant a contract for appointment in 2002 and 2008 by professor E, who falls under the personal information documents without approval of the Plaintiff, at the time of examining a petition for appeal in 2014, and violated the duty of confidentiality in the course of performing his/her duties and the duty of prohibiting the release of personal information by divulging the resignation of the assistant F to the outside in 2015.

1. Considering that the amount paid by the non-party company to receive money and valuables to the intervenors is not a monthly fixed amount but a flexible amount remaining at the end, credibility of the Intervenor’s assertion that is the settlement of actual expenses according to the receipt is recognized, and the disbursement details used as the Plaintiff’s business disposition expenses were submitted to the non-party company for double settlement

(2) shall be deemed to be unfair in respect of the duties.