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

A. The Plaintiff is a professor of the dance department at B University.

On December 26, 2016, the president of the B University rendered a disciplinary measure for March of his salary reduction (hereinafter “instant measure”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly teach the subjects of “Grae 1” during the first semester in the year of 2016 and had four other part-time lecturers teach all the subjects of lectures to the other part-time lecturers.

B. On January 2, 2017, the Plaintiff was notified of the instant disposition, and accordingly dissatisfied therewith, filed a request for review of a teacher’s petition seeking revocation of the instant disposition (hereinafter “instant request for review”) with the Defendant on February 2, 2017.

C. On March 22, 2017, the Defendant dismissed the request for review of this case on the ground that it did not file a complaint within 30 days from the date of knowing the existence of the disposition, which is the deadline for request under Article 9(1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status and the Protection

(hereinafter referred to as “instant adjudication”). 【The grounds for recognition” include evidence Nos. 1 through 3, evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness C’s partial testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the ruling of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) filed the instant request for review on February 2, 2017 with the limit of the period for request as stipulated in Article 9(1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status and the Protection of Educational Activities. However, this was based on the Defendant’s guidance that the instant request for review should be submitted by February 2, 2017. Accordingly, the instant request for review should be deemed to have been filed within the period as stipulated by the Act pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Administrative Appeals Act. Since the period for which the said request for review was filed could not be filed due to a cause not attributable to the Plaintiff, it shall not be included in the period for request pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Regulations on Petitions for Teachers and Article 27(2) of the Administrative Appeals Act.

3. Nevertheless, the ruling dismissing the petition for review of this case on the ground of the lapse of the time limit for request is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

(c).