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

A. On July 1, 1982, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as assistant professor of the medical college operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant university”) and was promoted as associate professor of the medical college of this case on October 1, 1984, and on October 1, 1988, the Plaintiff was appointed as associate professor of the medical college of this case. On October 1, 198, the term of office was set at ten years and was promoted to the medical college of this case and served as professor of the medical college of this case.

B. On January 20, 199, the university of this case held a review committee for appointment of teachers guaranteeing retirement age and examined the proposal for the appointment of teachers guaranteeing retirement age to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff met the minimum standard for the appointment of teachers guaranteeing retirement age (educational 450 points, salary business 250 points, general average 1,000 points) with the achievements evaluation of each field of five years based on Article 22 of the Addenda to the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teachers, 840 points in research and study, 600 points in education, 335 points in salary business, 335 points in general and 1,775 points in general.

However, while eight of the nine incumbent members of the above committee were present, the motion for appointment was rejected as one qualified person, six disqualified persons, and one appointing authority, as a result of voting on the motion for appointment of teachers guaranteeing the retirement age for the plaintiff.

C. In addition, the university of this case decided on February 2, 199 that the teachers' personnel committee held on January 21, 199 and the board of directors held on February 2, 199 that the consent to dismissal was passed on the grounds of the termination of the contract with each plaintiff. On February 28, 1999, the university of this case notified the plaintiff on February 2, 199 that "the appointment contract for teaching staff as of February 1, 198 of the plaintiff is terminated on February 28, 199."

On April 26, 199, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee of the pertinent university for the revocation of the disposition of dismissal from teaching. However, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of teaching status (Tgu District Court 99Gahap1999) against the Defendant, but was dismissed on August 1, 200.