1. On July 13, 2016, the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of the dismissal disposition No. 2016-348 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of decision on the petition examination;

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates the National University, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a person who was appointed as an associate professor with a graduate school department B at the National University on March 1, 2007 and was commissioned as a principal professor on September 1, 2009, and is in office as a professor of the C Department (which was changed from B graduate school department at the National University, to May 1, 2013).

B. On January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff demanded a resolution on disciplinary action against the Intervenor. On January 20, 2015, the teachers’ disciplinary committee decided to dismiss the Intervenor on the ground that: (a) on January 20, 2015, the Intervenor traded a large number of money to students belonging to the relevant department and did not repay some amount (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”); (b) the Intervenor obtained a written confirmation of payment of the development fund in the name of the Intervenor in relation to the Love Development Fund for Management Services created by the students with the amount provided for the development of the department (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”) and received income from income deduction in the name of the Intervenor.

Accordingly, on January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that he/she was dismissed on the grounds of reasons for disciplinary reasons No. 1 and No. 2.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant removal”). C.

On February 27, 2015, an intervenor filed a petition review with the Defendant seeking the revocation of the removal of the instant case. However, on May 13, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the petition review on the grounds that the grounds for disciplinary action was recognized and the disciplinary action is reasonable.

(hereinafter referred to as "prior decision") d.

On August 7, 2015, the Intervenor filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the preceding decision. On December 3, 2015, the court rendered a judgment revoking the preceding decision (2015Guhap70744) on the ground that the dismissal of the Intervenor’s status was unlawful on the ground that the dismissal of the Intervenor’s status was excessive, even though the grounds for the disciplinary action against the Intervenor were recognized, and that the dismissal of the Intervenor’s status was excessive, and the foregoing judgment was rendered on December 23, 2015.