1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor was appointed as a teacher at A University on April 1, 1994, and on September 1, 201, the Intervenor was appointed as an associate professor at tourism department (the term of appointment until August 31, 2017).

B. On July 30, 2013, the Ministry of Education, and on July 30, 2015, at the junior college, A University was notified of four-year nursing and designation as a four-year nursing and designation, and around that time, the number of students in tourism department with low student satisfaction rate was reduced from 200 to 120. On August 22, 2014, the government-funded university was notified of the designation of the limited university in government-funded by August 22, 2014. The number of tourism department students was reduced to 40 for the reduction of 112 students around that time.

C. On September 1, 2014, six teachers, including the Intervenor, prepared and submitted a resignation letter prepared by the Intervenor (hereinafter “the resignation letter of this case”). D.

The Plaintiff, without immediately accepting the written resignation of the instant case, sent the written application for conversion to the contract system to the early police officer in 2015, and the Intervenor did not consent to the conversion to the contract system, while allowing the Intervenor to make a lecture for the first semester in 2015, the Plaintiff paid the salary reduced (the basic salary was reduced from KRW 5,136,90 to KRW 4,510,840).

E. The Intervenor requested the Plaintiff to explain the aforementioned measures, but on May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the approval of the dismissal from office as a member.

(F) On August 26, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the instant notice on the ground that the Intervenor’s intent to resign was explicitly withdrawn and the Plaintiff’s approval was granted, and thus, the approval for the dismissal from office was null and void. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff’s dismissal from office was an ex officio dismissal, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the instant notice on the ground that it

(hereinafter referred to as "the decision of this case"). . [The ground for recognition] does not dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 9, 10, and Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers if there are serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) respectively.