2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On August 1, 2014, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was appointed as an associate professor with the term of appointment from September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2016 at a graduate school university established and operated by the Plaintiff.

B. On February 3, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of his refusal of re-election on the ground that the Intervenor “(i) had worked more than two years in the appointment support document,” and “(ii) was the lowest C Grade 20 among the total professors, and the number of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class.”

(hereinafter referred to as “the notice of refusal to re-appoint the instant case”).

On March 3, 2017, an intervenor filed a petition for review on the notification of refusal to re-appoint the Defendant.

On May 24, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision revoking the instant notice of refusal of reappointment on the ground that “The grounds for refusal of reappointment are limited to the grounds for the occurrence during the period of evaluation of reappointment. The grounds for the first reason is not a violation of duty during the period of evaluation of reappointment, and even if it is possible to serve as the grounds for refusal of reappointment, the Plaintiff did not appoint the Intervenor on the sole ground of the first reason, even if it is possible to serve as the grounds for refusal of reappointment. ② Of the grounds for the second reason, the number of participants is not the content of examination of reappointment prescribed by the school regulations, but the number of participants is not the content of examination of reappointment, and the evaluation points of demotion are already reflected

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1 and 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Acts and subordinate statutes related to examination for reappointment of the relevant statutes, the articles of incorporation, etc. of the Plaintiff, and the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff are listed in annexed

(Articles of Incorporation, etc. 17 through 21). 3. Whether the decision of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff, on July 2, 2009, announced the employment of a new teaching faculty member of the CU as of July 2, 2009.

An intervenor.