1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of decision on the petition examination;

A. An intervenor is a school foundation that establishes and operates a D University, etc.

The plaintiff was appointed as a participant on March 1, 2007 and served as a full-time lecturer, an assistant professor, and an associate professor at a D University.

B. On October 2, 2014, the Intervenor’s teachers’ disciplinary committee decided on October 2, 2014, upon the Intervenor’s request for disciplinary decision as of September 5, 2014 by the Intervenor’s president.

In the above decision, the above teachers' disciplinary committee took the grounds for disciplinary action that the Plaintiff violated Article 61 (1) 2 and 3 of the Private School Act and Article 45 (1) 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teachers by committing the following acts:

[This case’s grounds for each of the following shall be referred to as “the grounds for each of the instant disciplinary actions,” and when the individual grounds for the disciplinary action need to be met, it shall be specified in item number as stated in “the grounds for each of the instant grounds.”

[1] In 2013, the Plaintiff was aware of 20 to 30 minutes of the curriculum he was in charge of, and did not perform reinforcements after the Plaintiff was able to confirm the attendance of the students and complete the course of study. The Plaintiff decided the time of interview with the students during the four-year course of study in 2013, while setting the time of interview with the students in relation to the course of study for the four-year course of study, the Plaintiff did not have any prior notification to the students and did not perform reinforcements. On a specific day, the Plaintiff, instead of the Plaintiff, did not directly supervise the course of study, determined the time of interview with the students during which the Plaintiff was allowed to unilaterally and repeatedly changed the time of interview with the students without excluding the students’ opinions.

C. As a result of gathering students' opinions on the classes of the beauty design department under the supervision of the D University Art College and the beauty design department student association, the number of complaints against the Plaintiff was 59 cases, which accounts for 84.3% of the total number of complaints filed against the Plaintiff.

In addition, the lectures conducted by students.