1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details and details of the decision;

A. The Defendant Intervenor is a national university foundation that was established on December 28, 201 pursuant to the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Seoul National University and operates the Seoul National University (hereinafter “instant University”).

On March 1, 1988, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as an assistant professor at the University B, and was promoted as an associate professor on April 1, 1992, and served as a professor from April 1, 1997.

B. On June 5, 2015, the president of the University of this case rendered disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The facts stated in attached Table 1-1 are recognized, and such facts violate Articles 56 and 63 of the State Public Officials Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 55 of the Private School Act” under Article 61 of the Private School Act.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) C.

On July 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for an examination of the instant disciplinary action against the Defendant, and the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on August 26, 2015 on the ground that “The grounds for the disciplinary action and the amount of aggravated disciplinary action are recognized and appropriate.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 4 and 5 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

가. 징계 사유 부존재 별지 1-1 기재 가항 징계 사유와 관련하여, A11에 대한 신체 접촉은 기억이 없고, 원고가 의도적으로 A13의 가슴을 만진 적이 없으며, 강제로 학생들에게 러브샷을 시킬 의도는 없었다.

With regard to the grounds for the disciplinary action of B/L, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to be a very serious misconduct since the Plaintiff made A11 the said remarks.

There is no memory for the remaining horses and actions.

B. The grounds for increase in the determination of disciplinary action are not recognized, and the disciplinary action of this case is contrary to equity in comparison with the determination of disciplinary action in the similar case of the university of this case, and the plaintiff's wrongful act is depthed.