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.

The plaintiff is an educational foundation that operates C University three times in the process of decision on the examination of a petition.

On September 1, 1999, an intervenor continued to work as a full-time lecturer after being appointed as C University Computer Information and a full-time lecturer, and was appointed as an assistant professor on October 1, 2003.

On February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor from office on the ground of the abolition of computer information.

Accordingly, on June 18, 2007, the claim was accepted on the ground that the intervenor filed a petition review seeking confirmation of invalidation of ex officio dismissal and the amendment of school regulations for the abolition of the department was not made.

The Plaintiff reinstated an intervenor as of October 1, 2007 after undergoing the amendment procedure of school regulations, as of March 1, 2007, and subsequently ex officio dismissal as of October 1, 2007. However, the Intervenor re-appointed the Intervenor from September 1, 2007 to August 31, 201, reflecting that the Intervenor did not undergo the examination procedure for reappointment due to a request for review of an appeal, etc. as above.

Accordingly, the intervenor filed a petition review seeking confirmation of the invalidation of the above ex officio dismissal, and received a decision of acceptance on the ground that the amendment procedure of school regulations is unlawful.

The plaintiff returned to the intervenor on March 17, 2008 as of October 1, 2007.

The plaintiff followed the amendment procedure of school regulations, and again dismissed the intervenor on May 1, 2008.

Accordingly, the decision of dismissal on the request for review of the appeal filed by the intervenor against the defendant was made, and the intervenor filed an administrative litigation.

In the first instance of July 10, 2009, the Intervenor’s claim was dismissed, but on June 25, 2010, the Intervenor’s claim was accepted on the ground that “the Intervenor did not have any efforts to avoid removal, such as conversion,” and the judgment was rendered to revoke the decision to review the petition, and the same year.

9. On 30. 30. The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

On December 3, 2010, the Plaintiff is in charge of tourism information processing by participants according to the above final judgment.