1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s doctor’s degree and revocation of the degree are as follows: (a) around September 2004, the Plaintiff included the Plaintiff’s doctor’s degree course in B University Department of Special Education and C Educational Major, which the Defendant established and operated; and (b) completed the above doctor’s degree course on December 2006 and completed the above doctor’s degree course (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s thesis”).

(2) Around February 14, 2007, Plaintiff’s thesis received anonymous information to the effect that “F (G, 30 June 30, 197 publication)” (hereinafter “instant book”) was plagiarism at least 80% of the Japanese scholars E’ book at the graduate school of B, and that B, pursuant to Article 15 of the Research Ethics Regulations, the Plaintiff established a preliminary investigation committee and decided to conduct a preliminary investigation into plagiarism of Plaintiff’s thesis.

3) From November 25, 201 to December 23, 201 of the same year, the Preliminary Research Ethics Committee of B University held a three-time committee to examine the Plaintiff’s thesis, and the Plaintiff’s thesis made a decision that plagiarism was made by the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, on December 15, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted to the Preliminary Investigation Committee of B University a written vindication that “The historical classification form of this time falls under a translation (or translation) rather than plagiarism, due to the characteristics as a research paper for the analysis of historical records. There was an error that could not thoroughly accept or process plagiarism.” (iv) around December 29, 201, the Preliminary Research Ethics Committee of B University submitted a written vindication that “A preliminary investigation was conducted by the Preliminary Investigation Committee of B University,” and received a preliminary investigation report on the above results, and then, sought the Plaintiff’s opinion from the Review Committee of this paper as to whether the Plaintiff’s thesis was plagiarism or not, and then, sought the Plaintiff’s opinion from the Review Committee of this paper.