1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff obtained the Plaintiff’s doctor’s degree from C University graduate schools on August 17, 2007, which was established and operated by the Defendant in 2005 and submitted a doctor’s degree thesis (hereinafter “D”) called “D” upon completing the above course, and received the Plaintiff’s degree from C University graduate schools on August 17, 2007.

B. The Plaintiff’s doctor’s degree revocation 1) However, with respect to the Plaintiff, who was going to the election of National Assembly members at the end of March 2012 at the press, the author written a doctor’s degree thesis “G” in E University Graduate School F (hereinafter “F thesis”) of E University Graduate.

(1) Upon reporting the suspicion that plagiarism was plagiarism, C University graduate schools are deemed to be “Research Ethics Committee” (hereinafter “Research Ethics Committee”) on March 30, 2012.

(2) On April 19, 2012, the Research Ethics Committee established a preliminary investigation committee of the Research Ethics Committee pursuant to Article 18 of the Regulations of the Research Ethics Committee and decided to conduct a preliminary investigation into the Plaintiff’s thesis’s plagiarism. (2) On April 19, 2012, the Preliminary Investigation Committee of the Research Ethics Committee decided on the need to conduct a full-scale investigation on the following grounds: (a) although the considerable portion of the Plaintiff’s thesis is consistent with the F’s work papers, the F’s personal consent is irrelevant to the determination of plagiarism; and (b) the F’s personal consent is not related to the determination of plagiarism.

3) Accordingly, the Research Ethics Committee organized a full-scale investigation committee on May 18, 2012 and investigated whether the Plaintiff’s work was plagiarism by November 14, 2012. On November 23, 2012, the Plaintiff’s work in this paper is very poor from the F’s work papers in research purpose, temporary installation, method, and result parts, and there is no indication corresponding to the F’s work papers. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s work in this paper is determined as plagiarism, and there is no indication corresponding to the F’s work papers.