1. As to the Defendant’s claim for revocation of dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor on February 8, 2017.

1. Details of decision on the petition examination;

A. From September 1, 1997, the Plaintiff served as a full-time lecturer at C University’s humanities (Seoul University)’s humanities established and operated by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) from September 1, 1997, and served as a professor from September 1, 2008.

B. On February 17, 2016, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff following the deliberation of the teachers’ disciplinary committee.

The plaintiff did not conduct 117 times (124 hours) classes for the nine subjects in the year of 2013 from 1 semester to 2015.

C University prohibited the annual lectures in the case of theoretical subjects, and if it is inevitable to do so, the Plaintiff implemented the annual lectures without the approval of the president in advance, even though it was conducted with the approval of the president.

Unlike the scheduled class schedule, the right and welfare of 14 students were infringed by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff's 14 students' overlap with other subjects or become unable to engage in an occupation-building.

The plaintiff prepared a false attendance book or had some students make a false electronic exit in order to cultivate the number of students as he/she did not conduct the class.

C. On March 16, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition review with the Defendant.

On June 1, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Intervenor’s dismissal on February 17, 2016, on the following grounds: “The Plaintiff did not conduct a total of 102 times (109 hours) by taking lectures about the eight subjects from 2013 to 2015 without the president’s approval; however, the remainder of the grounds for disciplinary action is related to the portion for which the Intervenor did not demand a disciplinary resolution; thus, it cannot be considered as the grounds for disciplinary action, and the dismissal disposition by the sole reason of the grounds for disciplinary action is deemed to have abused the discretion of disciplinary action.”

After that, the intervenor against the plaintiff on October 27, 2016 after deliberation by the teachers' disciplinary committee.