A. The Defendant is a school juristic person operating C University (hereinafter “Defendant University”).

On March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as an assistant professor of the International Trade Department of the Defendant University from March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2018.

B. On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for deliberation on the reappointment with Defendant University. On December 29, 2017, the Defendant University issued a disposition of refusal of reappointment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition of refusal of reappointment”) on the ground that the Plaintiff met the requirements for reappointment relating to the number of faculty members in exclusive charge of the recruitment of the Defendant University (80%) during the service period under Article 9(6) Subparag. 4 of the Regulations on Appointment of Faculty Members on December 29, 2017.

Article 6 (Period of Appointment) The period of appointment shall not exceed two years.

Article 9 (Examination and Evaluation for Re-Appointment) (6) No person shall be reappointed in any of the following cases:

4. Where the total number of lectures during the immediately preceding semester is less than 80% of the total amount of lectures, Article 10 (Obligation of time, etc.) (1) Demotion shall be a regular subject and a special subject required by this university and college, and the number of time for taking responsibility shall be 12 hours a week during a semester;

Provided, That the number of teachers exclusively in charge of foreign language lectures shall be 15 hours.

(6) With respect to the number of responsibility referred to in paragraph (1), where the president recognizes it, the number of responsibility for ascertaining the duties of a university or performing policy tasks may be reduced.

The provisions of this Amendment, Article 2 (Transitional Measures) of the Addenda (As of September 1, 2016) (As of September 1, 2016), shall enter into force on and after March 1, 2016.

C. Of the Rules on Appointment of Teachers Exclusively in Charge of the Appointment of Defendant University (hereinafter “instant Provisions”), the contents pertaining to the instant provision are as follows.

The plaintiff filed an appeal review with the Appeal Commission against the rejection disposition of re-election of this case.

E. On March 28, 2018, the Appeal Committee for Teachers is at least the standard related to the number of times of responsibility under Article 9(6)4 of the instant provision.