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

A. Status 1) The Defendant’s affiliated universities (hereinafter “Defendant’s University”)

(2) On March 1, 2004, the Plaintiff was newly appointed to the Ministry of Culture and Arts as a full-time lecturer for one year of employment and was reappointed several times on April 1, 2009, and was appointed as an assistant professor several times on several occasions, and the last period of reappointment was from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2014.

B. The Defendant’s refusal of reappointment against the Plaintiff was conducted from April 2014 to the year 2014. The Defendant established the standards for evaluation of achievements for the examination of reappointment; the Plaintiff’s short-term teachers in the same year as the Plaintiff determined to evaluate their achievements by adding up the evaluation of the core duties of 80 scores out of 2013 and the evaluation of the extension of the full scores out of 20 points to the 80th evaluation period. The terms and conditions of reappointment of the Defendant’s university ought to be more than average 70 scores out of the employment period. 2) The Defendant’s university teachers’ evaluation committee of achievements against the Plaintiff on June 11, 2014 (i) notified the Plaintiff of the results evaluation points out of 68.17 points in the evaluation of the Plaintiff’s achievements (i.e., the 67.8 point in the evaluation of the core duties) and gave an opportunity to explain it to the Plaintiff.

3) The Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant’s University Teachers’ Training Evaluation Committee a supporting document stating that the Plaintiff’s achievement evaluation of 4 cases of thesis review, 2 times of external specialty, and 1 thesis of international academic conference. On June 26, 2014, the Defendant’s University Teachers’ Personnel Committee recognized the Plaintiff’s two out of the Plaintiff’s explanation as an extension of 1-2 out of the extension of 2 times of external special lectures, adding 0.4 points to the extension of 0.4 points. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s final performance evaluation point is 68.57 points (i.e., the extension of 67.37 points for the core assessment) (i.e., the extension of 67.37 points for the core assessment). 4) The Defendant is re-appointed by the board of directors held on June 27, 2014.