1. The Defendant’s KRW 148,527,680 as well as 5% per annum from December 24, 2013 to July 17, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 1996, the Plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer at C University Chemical Engineering Department, and was assigned as a associate professor at C University on September 8, 2003 through an associate professor at the Chemical Environment Engineering Department, and was promoted and appointed as a associate professor on April 1, 2004. (2) The Defendant is a school foundation that establishes and operates C University (hereinafter “C University”) with its name changed to D University (hereinafter “C University”).

B. On April 16, 2004, C University amended its school regulations to abolish major departments of nanotechnology (which is a measure not to recruit new students of the relevant department, and which is a measure to not recruit new students of the relevant department, and the relevant department is automatically closed if all students of the relevant department graduate after the abolition of major). (2) C University enacted “Regulation on Structural Reform” on February 1, 2007 by promoting restructuring from around the summer of 2006. The main contents of the regulation are as follows: (a) the professors affiliated with the relevant department may be changed to the departments of culture, and may be granted a period of self-development within the scope of two years; (b) the professors affiliated with the relevant department shall be subject to deliberation by the planning and coordination committee; and (c) if they are not re-appointed after the expiration of the said period, they may not be re-appointed or re-contractualed.

(Articles 8 and 9) are the same.

3) On January 2, 2007, the Defendant issued a disposition to change the Plaintiff’s affiliation belonging to the department closed pursuant to the above structural reform to the cultural department. In that process, prior consultation with the Plaintiff or did not provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to present his/her opinion on the change to which he/she belongs. (C) On December 30, 2009, the Defendant issued an ex officio dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was a teacher belonging to the department closed with the major, and whose self-help efforts are insufficient” against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was insufficient.”

2. On April 26, 2010, the Appeal Committee for Teachers seeks revocation of the above ex officio dismissal.