The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. Case history

A. (1) The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was a professor at A University’s University, who was assigned to work as a full-time professor upon receiving an order to hold concurrent office in C Hospital’s regular branch from 1995.

(2) According to A.I.D. Regulations on the Implementation of the Concurrent Office of Medical Personnel (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2015, Feb. 5, 2015; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”), where the head of the medical center receives a request to terminate the concurrent office from the head of the hospital, he/she shall determine whether to terminate the application following deliberation by the Committee for Personnel of Medical Personnel. In the case of faculty members of the medical department, “a person whose average acquisition price for the last three years falls short of 50 years, or whose average acquisition price for the relevant hospital and the total number of faculty members falls short of 50% (Article 5(1)1),” “a person who has a significant adverse effect on the reputation and management of the hospital” (Article 5(1)2).

According to the evaluation criteria for the results of medical treatment, the results of medical treatment shall be assessed with the maximum of 100 points, and the detailed criteria include “net sales (50 points), net sales (15 points), patients (20 points), and other hospitals and sales (15 points).”

(Article 4 and subparagraph 1(3) of the attached Table 1) The president of C Hospital requested an examination on January 11, 2016 to terminate the concurrent office holding by an intervenor. On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff notified on February 29, 2016 that the Intervenor will terminate the concurrent office holding by clinical Teachers as of February 29, 2016.

The gist of the reasons is as follows:

① Article 5(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case: (a) the treatment performance for the last one year (from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015) is 32; (b) the treatment performance for the last two years (from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015) is 32.8; and (c) the treatment performance for the last two years (from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015) was given an opportunity to improve the treatment performance on two occasions, the treatment performance for the last half of 2015 did not have a self-help effort to improve the treatment performance for 28 points.

② Article 5(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case: Civil petitions filed from patients (from 2007 to 2014) and medical treatment.