1. The defendant shall calculate the amount of wages in attached Form 169,216,50 won to the plaintiff and 139,216,500 won among them.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a school foundation that establishes and operates C University or D University.

B. On March 1, 198, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer at C University E-university, and entered into a contract with the Defendant for reappointment with the term of appointment from September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2016, as the Plaintiff was promoted as an associate professor on September 1, 2010.

C. On March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff, one of the joint promoters of the C University Professors Council, which was established on March 19, 2013, took a critical position with other professors, and the Defendant removed the Plaintiff on January 19, 2014, on the ground that such activities of the Plaintiff constitute defamation.

Accordingly, on January 22, 2015, the court of first instance filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the Plaintiff’s filing. On January 22, 2015, the court below held that “The purport of the Plaintiff, etc. organizing the Faculty Council or publishing its name is that the Plaintiff, etc. should be operated in a transparent manner in compliance with the purpose of its establishment, and that the Plaintiff, C University, etc. has no suspicion of corruption, even though it should be operated for educational purposes, and that the president has continued to be pointed out by the Ministry of Education, the Board of Education, the Board of Audit, and the Board of Audit, Inspection, etc..., and that Defendant and president, etc. were urged to seek the form of the Plaintiff’s principal as an educational institution by clearly and transparently operating C University and Defendant, etc., and the fact that the Plaintiff, etc. was pointed out by the Board of Education and the Board of Audit and Inspection, etc., as seen above, constitutes a democratic and transparent operation of universities, etc., which is an educational institution, and thus, the Defendant’s removal disposition has no validity.”