1. On June 7, 2017, the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of dismissal under Article 2017-118 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates the C University, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is appointed as a professor or assistant professor of the C University, and served from March 1, 2013 to August 31, 2015 as the head of the Audio Video Department.

Around July 2014, an intervenor filed a budget comprised of school expenses subsidies and student self-paid contributions in relation to the event of “D” in which 48 students attend the event, and submitted a report on the result of executing the expenses. Around July 2014, the intervenor received the event budget required for KRW 3,472,430, and received KRW 4,680,80, which is KRW 400,000, which is 40% of the school expenses, and submitted a false receipt from among the receipts attached to the report submitted after the completion of the event.

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”) In addition, despite having been subsidized for school expenses (40%) at the event of a department, the student knew that there was no school expenses due to the closure of the department, and the student was walking along with additional costs, such as using the pipelineing incentive, etc. to be paid to the individual.

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”) The Intervenor failed to submit evidence or vindicate that the amount subsidized as school expenses had been normally used by students participating in the drama system, and due to the same issue, the Plaintiff’s reputation and dignity as school teachers were damaged.

On December 26, 2016, the Plaintiff’s teachers’ disciplinary committee decided to dismiss the Intervenor on the ground that the Intervenor violated Article 61(1)1 through 3 of the Private School Act as follows. Accordingly, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant removal disposition”). On January 31, 2017, an intervenor filed a petition for review with the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant removal disposition.

On June 7, 2017, the defendant, together with a false receipt of an amount equivalent to ① the intervenor, shall be attached to the school.