1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment in this case, shall be as follows: (a) the 3rd following the 14th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be considered as "salivity"; and (b) the 15th of the 13th of the 15th of the 15th of the 15th of the 15th of the 15th of the 15th judgment shall be deemed as legitimate; and (c) the 15th of the 15th of the 15th of the 15th judgment shall be deemed as the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance; and therefore, (d)

2. We examine the part to be used again, and whether the grounds for termination of the instant case under Article 5 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case are recognized.

In examining whether “a person who has a profound adverse effect on the honor and management of an hospital annexed to a university” is “a person who has caused a serious adverse impact on the reputation and management of the hospital annexed to the university,” the fact that a specific and specific fact that was made after the enforcement of the above provision needs to be fully supported by objective evidence or data in order to avoid the concerns that the person in charge of the evaluation and the person may intervene and to minimize the infringement

Of the grounds for termination of the instant case cited by the Plaintiff, the part concerning Article 5(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case concerning “a civil petition filed by the Intervenor (2007-2014-2014) from the patient he/she provided medical treatment” and “non-Ethical act, etc. in medical treatment and clinical education, etc.” is as shown in the background of the decision on the examination of the instant petition. In addition to the respective entries and arguments of the evidence Nos. 14, 18 through 20 (including the number of pages), the civil petition filed by the Intervenor from the patient who provided medical treatment to 2014 was generated from 207 to 2014, and the major is recognized to have submitted a written statement to the effect that the Intervenor received non-Ethical and unfair treatment in medical treatment and clinical education from the Intervenor around 2013 through 2016.