1. As to the case on May 27, 2015, the Defendant’s revocation of dismissal disposition between the Plaintiff and the school juristic person, and the case on the examination of petition revocation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In around 2002, the Plaintiff was appointed as an assistant professor of the C University, and on March 1, 2006, the Plaintiff was appointed as an associate professor of the D University as a department of early childhood education and associate professor.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Intervenor”) is a school juristic person operating the D University.

B. On November 17, 2014, the Intervenor requested a disciplinary decision to the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee on the ground that the Plaintiff plagiarism another person’s writing, as shown in the attached Form “Grounds for Dismissal,” published another person’s thesis in his/her own name, published his/her previous thesis and writing duplicately, and published it. On December 19, 2014, the Intervenor decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on January 6, 2015, following the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee’ Disciplinary Decision (hereinafter “instant disciplinary decision”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision of dismissal,” and attached Form 3 refers to “the grounds for dismissal,” etc. according to the sequence thereof.

On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition review with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a decision of dismissal on May 27, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, and Eul No. 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's dismissal decision of this case is unlawful as follows. Thus, the plaintiff's dismissal decision of this case is unlawful. The plaintiff's dismissal request of this case's dismissal decision of this case is unlawful.

1) In the process, the Intervenor did not specifically explain the grounds for dismissal to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant disciplinary decision, and the Plaintiff did not have any opportunity to vindicate the grounds for dismissal.

B. A defective assistant in the written decision of dismissal did not specify specific grounds for dismissal in the written decision of dismissal.