1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision;

A. The Plaintiff’s status 1) The Plaintiff was integrated into C University F University (E and F University around March 2007) (E and F University).

(2) Around March 1, 1986, G University and C University were integrated and established as a comprehensive university. Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) merged school juristic persons D on March 3, 2010.

A new full-time lecturer has been appointed at the E-university which was established and operated, and was reappointed twice on March 1, 198 and March 1, 1990.

On October 1, 1991, an intervenor has been appointed as an assistant professor by setting the term of appointment as of February 28, 1995 and served as an assistant professor.

B. On March 30, 1995, the school foundation D, which rejected the first reappointment, notified the intervenors of the decision to reject the reappointment on the grounds that “the Intervenor disclosed a list of unlawful admission to the university that he/she acquired while on duty as the president of the university, thereby having injured his/her dignity as a professor with the actual network and decentralization of the faculty members, students enrolled, graduates, and parents.”

(hereinafter referred to as “decision of Refusal to be Re-appointed”)

The first decision to revoke the appointment of university faculty members and the first decision to revoke the first decision to reject the appointment of university faculty members (hereinafter referred to as “the first decision to revoke the appointment of university faculty members”) was made on July 13, 2005 by the Special Act on the Relief of Persons Disqualified from Appointment of University Faculty Members, and the intervenor filed a petition for review on October 14, 2005. The defendant rendered a decision to revoke the first decision to reject the appointment of university faculty members (hereinafter referred to as “the first decision to revoke”).

(2) On June 12, 2006, school foundation D filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the first revocation of the revocation of the appointment of a teacher, but the judgment dismissing the claim of school foundation D on the ground that “the intervenor’s failure to dismiss the first appointment is illegal because it cannot be readily concluded that the intervenor violated various duties as an education-related statute or a teacher, and thus, it was illegal that the first appointment of a teacher was abused from the personnel rights of the teacher.”

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2006Guhap20730 decided Nov. 3, 2006