1. We affirm that the Defendant’s dismissal disposition against the Plaintiffs on September 1, 2013 is invalid.

2. The defendant is against the plaintiff A.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries in Gap evidence 1 to 18, Eul evidence 2 to 31 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

The defendant is a school juristic person that establishes and operates a E University and a F University.

Plaintiff

From March 1, 1996, Plaintiff B was appointed as professor of E University from March 1, 1996, Plaintiff C from March 1, 1997, and Plaintiff C as professor of E University from March 1, 1996.

B. 1) On May 1, 2009, the president of the E University notified the health and medical administration division to which the Plaintiff A belonged, the management division to which the Plaintiff B belonged, and the Damon Master division to which the Plaintiff C was affiliated, after deliberation by the E University Educational Committee, and the university council. 2) The president of the E University announced a partial amendment of the school regulations on September 4, 2009, the president of the E University promulgated the amended school regulations on October 21, 2009, following deliberation by the school affairs committee and the university council council.

3) On January 12, 2011, the E University Teachers Personnel Committee deliberated and resolved on the closure and dismissal of the Plaintiffs, and on January 14, 201, the president of the E University recommended the closure and dismissal of the Plaintiffs, and decided on the closure and dismissal of the Plaintiff’s board of directors around January 27, 2011. Accordingly, on January 27, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the closure and dismissal of the personnel committee (hereinafter “first dismissal”).

4) The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the first disposition of dismissal and filed a request for each appeal with the Appeal Committee for Teachers. At the time of the first disposition of dismissal, the Appeal Committee for Teachers decided that the first disposition of dismissal against the Plaintiffs was revoked on the ground that the first disposition of dismissal against the Plaintiffs was unlawful.

5. The defendant is dissatisfied with the above decision of the teachers' appeals review committee and seek the revocation of the above decision to the Seoul Administrative Court.