1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was appointed as a Chinese language faculty member at C University operated by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) (hereinafter “ Intervenor”).

With respect to D (hereinafter referred to as “1 thesis”), E (hereinafter referred to as “2 thesis”), F (hereinafter referred to as “third thesis”) and G (hereinafter referred to as “fourth thesis”), the Plaintiff forged a set of evidential data so as to see as if the papers not published in the academic journal were published (the second thesis), and forged a set of evidential data in order to make the papers inserted in the academic journal appear as a private letter (the second paper), and forged a set of evidential data (the first, third, and fourth paper) in order to see as if the papers inserted in the academic journal were published in the academic journal.

(4) b).

On July 22, 2016, the Intervenor issued a dismissal disposition (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff had breached the duty of good faith under Article 55(1) of the Private School Act, Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, and Article 61(1)3 of the Private School Act, by deceiving the Intervenor and deceiving research funds by forging any paper that is not written by the Plaintiff’s arbitrary entry of the private journal in the thesis and is not written in the academic journal as if it was actually published in the academic journal.”

The specific grounds for disciplinary action are as follows.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disciplinary action and filed a request for review of appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disciplinary action against the Defendant, but on October 19, 2016, the request for review of appeal was dismissed.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision of this case is legitimate

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (i) in the case of 1, 3, and 4 thesis, it falls under the normal research performance and thus becomes a letter of apology in the academic field.