1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including costs incurred by participation.

1. Details of decision on the petition examination;

A. On March 1, 2012, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a Korean language education course at D University and an assistant professor at D University and served as an associate professor from March 1, 2014. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is an educational foundation that establishes and operates D University.

B. On June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff’s graduate school E (hereinafter “victim”) reported sexual assault damage incidents related to the Plaintiff to a student counseling center sexual counseling center. The Intervenor held a three-time deliberation of the Investigation Committee and the Teachers’ Personnel Committee of Sexual Harassment, etc. including sexual harassment, etc. from July 24, 2017 to August 23, 2017, and requested the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee to make a disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff on November 6, 2017.

C. On December 28, 2017, the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the following grounds, following five hearings, and the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on January 31, 2018.

(2) On January 30, 2016, the Plaintiff offered to the victim, who is the leader of master’s degree thesis, a continuous proposal for recreational forest trip trip, house trip, drinking room, etc. for the period from August to February 2016, and entered into a sex relationship with the victim on January 30, 2016.

The plaintiff's act was sexual intercourse with a guide student by taking advantage of the superior position of professor, and this is not only a violation of the duty of good faith, which must be observed as a university professor, but also a serious violation of its nature and dignity.

Therefore, a decision is made to dismiss a person subject to disciplinary action as a professor who violated the relevant regulations (Article 61 of the Private School Act, Article 3 of the Service Regulations, and Article 34 of the Personnel Management Regulations).

On February 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant dismissal disposition, and the Defendant, on April 25, 2018, recognized the grounds for disciplinary action under Article 61(1) of the Private School Act and dismissed the instant dismissal disposition.