2. The defendant shall be the defendant.

A. The Defendant is a school foundation that operates a D University (hereinafter “instant University”); Plaintiff A is appointed as an E-department or assistant professor of the instant University on February 20, 2013; and Plaintiff A works as an assistant professor of the University on February 20, 2014.

9. 1. Associate professors are teaching staff appointed as associate professors and worked until August 31, 2016, the expiration date of the term of appointment, and Plaintiff B is teaching staff appointed as assistant professors of the University E major in this case on September 1, 2014 and worked until August 31, 2016, the expiration date of the term of appointment.

B. On June 13, 2016, the defendant decided that the plaintiffs should not be reappointed by holding a teachers' personnel committee on the grounds that the expiration of the plaintiffs' appointment period expires. On June 19, 2016, the defendant notified each of the plaintiffs on July 8, 2016 following the resolution of the board of directors on June 19, 2016. (2) The teachers' personnel committee on June 13, 2016 recognized that the plaintiffs' employment evaluation score in the case of the plaintiffs A was first one in the case of the plaintiffs, but decided that the plaintiffs' employment evaluation score in the case of the plaintiff Eul is inappropriate for reappointment on the grounds that "the plaintiffs' employment evaluation score in the case of the plaintiff Eul constitutes a disciplinary person due to an act, etc. in the form of internal disturbance." In the case of the plaintiff Eul, three teachers' employment evaluation score in the case of the persons subject to the review of reappointment

3. On July 25, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers seeking revocation of a disposition of re-appointing, which was made by the Defendant.

On September 21, 2016, the Appeal Committee for Teachers revoked the disposition rejecting reappointment on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s “in the case of Plaintiff A” did not provide an opportunity to vindicate the grounds for refusal of reappointment, and that the procedural defect is recognized not regarding the specific grounds for refusal of reappointment in the notification of the disposition rejecting reappointment. In the case of Plaintiff B, there are procedural defects not specifying the specific grounds for refusal of reappointment in the notification of the disposition rejecting reappointment.