재임용거부처분무효확인
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a school foundation that establishes and operates C University, etc., and the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a teacher exclusively in charge of the industry at C University on March 1, 2010, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a full-time professor at C University from March 1, 2011 to February 29, 2012.
B. On December 20, 201, the C University Teachers Personnel Committee decided not to re-appoint the Plaintiff on December 20, 201, and the Defendant, following the resolution of the board of directors on December 27, 201, issued a notice of refusal to re-appoint the Plaintiff on December 28, 201, stating that “the term of appointment of the Plaintiff expires on February 29, 2012, and it is inevitable to re-contract with the Plaintiff for reasons of falling short of evaluation points” (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. On the ground that the plaintiff's main rejection disposition of this case is invalid due to the procedural or substantial defect, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's main rejection disposition of this case is invalid, and that the plaintiff's rejection disposition of this case is not allowed since 4 years and 1 months from the time when the plaintiff retired without any objection against the rejection disposition of this case and received retirement payment, and then the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is not allowed in violation of the principle of invalidation or the principle of prohibition.
B. The exercise of the right to the relevant legal doctrine 1 ought to be in accordance with the good faith and the abuse of the right is impossible. Therefore, the exercise of the right by the right holder does not exercise the right within a considerable period of time despite the right holder’s actual opportunity to exercise the right, thereby exercising the right to the obligor as well as the obligor, thereby making it more reasonable expectation that the right holder would not exercise the right, and then exercising the right in good faith.