1. The Defendant’s dismissal from position as of December 18, 2012 against the Plaintiff and the removal as of September 30, 2014, respectively, are null and void.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 1985, the Plaintiff was appointed to the Defendant’s C junior college operated by the Defendant, and was in office as the head of the entrance management team from August 1, 2005, and from March 1, 2012, as the head of the entrance management team.

B. On September 13, 2012, the C-L team leader demanded a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff has misappropriated and embezzled approximately KRW 230 million of the entrance expenses and allowances in relation to the entrance inspection from 2008 to 2011,” and on December 18, 2012, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff from position on the ground of the above disciplinary action against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 29(3) of the Personnel Regulations.

(hereinafter “Release from position”. From 2008 to 2011, the fact-finding committee confirmed that the Plaintiff embezzled approximately KRW 230 million in relation to the admission expenses and allowances and demanded a disciplinary resolution. As a result of the investigation conducted by the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff embezzled KRW 178,214,895 in total during the above period. As such, the Plaintiff violated Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 61 (Duty of Integrity), Article 32 (Reasons for Disciplinary Action and Demand), Article 3 (Duty of Care) of the Regulations on Personnel Management, Article 3 (Duty), Article 356 (Occupational Embezzlement and Breach of Trust) of the Criminal Act.

C. On September 17, 2014, the Defendant’s Employee Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff as of September 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant removal disposition”), and notified the Plaintiff on September 29, 2014.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff was indicted for the crime of occupational embezzlement (hereinafter “related criminal procedure”) as follows. On November 24, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment not guilty on the grounds that it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff used part of the admission cost as recorded in the facts charged by an entertainment expense, etc. and embezzled it by using it as an individual for entertainment expenses, etc., and the above judgment of the first instance.