1. On August 12, 2015, the Defendant’s petition review case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor for removal from office is filed.

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer at the early university established and operated by the defendant assistant intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the " assistant intervenor") on March 1, 2000, and he was appointed as an assistant professor on April 1, 2002 and the associate professor on October 1, 2009, respectively, and reached the present.

On January 1, 2015, the Intervenor stated that “Around May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff engaged in sexual indecent conduct twice from the perspective of professor C (name before the opening name: D; hereinafter “C”) (hereinafter “grounds for removal”); ② on May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff stated the above facts at the doctorate degree course (hereinafter “Grounds for removal 2”); and ③ on June 3, 2014, the Plaintiff reconvened the said facts at the doctorate degree meeting (hereinafter “Grounds for removal 3”); and ④ at the department and office of the department, the Plaintiff requested the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee to make a resolution on the grounds that “the nature of the removal 4”; and (hereinafter “Grounds for removal 63”) the Plaintiff removed the Plaintiff through the instant disciplinary resolution (hereinafter “instant disciplinary resolution”).

(hereinafter “instant decision of removal.” On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition review with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the petition on August 12, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition for review of the instant decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition for review of the removal of office in this case is unlawful on the following grounds: (a) evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 through 8, and 25 (including additional numbers); and (b) the purport of the entire pleadings.

1. In the process, three of the members of the Special Committee on Sexual Violence who investigated the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff by assisting the prosecution agency for disciplinary action against the illegal grounds for the disciplinary action was a member of the teachers' disciplinary committee, which is a decision-making agency, and this is fair