재임용거부처분취소결정취소
1. The case where the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of revocation of the reappointment between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant on April 17, 2012.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 31, 2010, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was appointed as a full-time teacher in the accounting affairs department, a newly established department, as C University (hereinafter “university”) established and operated by the Plaintiff on December 31, 201, and served as the head of the accounting affairs department during the contract period (contract period: December 31, 2010 to February 29, 2012).
B. On January 13, 2011, the university revised the former Regulations on the Full-time Teachers of the Non-Retirement Prize and enters into force on January 20, 2011. Article 21 of the amended Regulations on the Full-time Teachers of the Non-Retirement Prize (hereinafter “instant Regulations”) provides that “for a re-contract for a person appointed as a contracting system, a person who has received at least an average of 80 points per year of the contract period under [Attachment Table 1] shall be a person who has received at least an average of 80 points per year of the contract period in accordance with the criteria for the evaluation table and the evaluation of the evaluation table.” [Attachment Table 1] provides that the evaluation criteria for the assessment of non-full-time Teachers shall be 3-1. Re-registration rate of 3-1. Re-registration rate of 90% higher than the annual average re-registration rate of 20% higher than 85% higher than the re-registration rate shall be re-registrationed at 1% lower and below 285% lower per annum.
C. In a faculty evaluation conducted from November 3, 201 to November 16, 201, the Teachers’ Job Evaluation Committee assessed 68.33 points on the Intervenor’s total (i.e., 1. ethics items 23 points and 25.33 points and 10 points for school development items 2.33 points). In particular, on the ground that the re-registration rate (76.9%) of the Ministry of Accounting for the part on the re-registration rate of 2 semester in 2011 falls short of 80% (i.e., 20 points = 20 points - 10% ( - 80%) x 2 points). D.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s refusal to re-appoint the Intervenor on November 26, 201, on the ground that the Intervenor falls short of 80 points, which is the minimum standard for reappointment prescribed in Article 21 of the instant provision, in the faculty evaluation of teaching services.