1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of decision on the petition examination;

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that established and operates C University, etc.

An intervenor was appointed to the plaintiff on March 1, 2007 and served as the Dental Department, a full-time lecturer, an assistant professor, and an associate professor at C University, and has taught students.

B. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff’s teachers’ disciplinary committee decided to dismiss the Intervenor on October 2, 2014, upon the Plaintiff’s request of the president for disciplinary resolution as to the disciplinary action against the Intervenor.

In the above decision, the above teachers' disciplinary committee took the grounds for disciplinary action that the intervenor violated Article 61 (1) 2 and 3 of the Private School Act and Article 45 (1) 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teachers by committing the following acts:

[This case’s grounds for each of the following shall be referred to as “the grounds for each of the instant disciplinary actions,” and when the individual grounds for the disciplinary action need to be met, it shall be specified in item number as stated in “the grounds for each of the instant grounds.”

[1] In 2013, the Intervenor was dismissed frequently at least 20 to 30 minutes of the curriculum he was in charge of, and did not perform reinforcements after having given prior notice to the students. On a specific day, the Intervenor, instead of the Intervenor, did not directly supervise and supervise the students, and there was little way for the Intervenor to check and supervise the students’ attendance. (B) In 2013, the Intervenor decided the time for the interview with the students in relation to the four-year course of the course of the graduation, and decided the time for the interview with the students during which he was unilaterally excluded from the student’s opinion, and changed it repeatedly.

C. As a result of gathering the opinions of the students on the classes of the Dental Department under the supervision of C University Art College and D Study Association, 84.3% of the total number of complaints against the participants were 59 cases.

And even in the case of lectures conducted by students, the intervenor in 201.