1. On December 9, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that the three-month disciplinary action taken against the Plaintiff on December 9, 2016 was invalid.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a legal entity that establishes and operates C University, a private school, and the Plaintiff is a professor in the construction department of C University.

B. 1) The Defendant’s Disciplinary Committee’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff was imposed on the Plaintiff on the grounds of the following disciplinary action, and the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on February 13, 2015.

① During 2014, the Plaintiff, a research year, opened a lecture (F, G) by stealing the names of other professors (D and E), and forged a private document by using seals of other professors (D and E) without permission when submitting a reinforcement plan and a report on the result of reinforcement.

② The Plaintiff falsely prepared the minutes related to the change of the prime professor, and used the signature of another professor without permission.

③ The Plaintiff committed research misconduct by plagiarism or publishing, without citing, some of the three articles, such as research on the interior performance of a glass wall system applicable to the fire-fighting division, as stated in title 20, title 1, 2004, No. 20, 1004, when compiling a study on H of the doctoral degree thesis in 2004 (plagiarism of a doctoral degree thesis). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this claim and filed a petition for a review of appeal (plagiarism of a doctoral degree paper). On August 12, 2015, the Appeal Committee for Teachers did not recognize the grounds for disciplinary action (i) among the above grounds for disciplinary action (iii) without recognizing the grounds for disciplinary action, and (ii) the degree of the

Considering that the above disciplinary action cannot be seen, the disciplinary action was judged to be illegal by abusing or abusing discretion, and the dismissal disposition was revoked in accordance with the above decision.

3) After that, the additional audit was conducted against the Plaintiff, and on August 30, 2016, the Defendant Teachers Disciplinary Committee referred to as the grounds for the following disciplinary actions (the grounds for each of the following disciplinary actions are referred to as “each of the grounds for each of the instant disciplinary actions,” and the grounds for each of the disciplinary actions is referred to as “the grounds for each of the grounds for each of the instant disciplinary actions,” with respect to the Plaintiff.