재임용거부처분취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including by supplementary participation.
Details of the disposition
On March 1, 2015, an intervenor was newly appointed as an assistant professor from A University's term of appointment to February 28, 2017.
On October 13, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors of their application for reappointment by October 26, 2016, and the Intervenor applied for reappointment to the Plaintiff within that period.
On December 14, 2016, the 14th A.A.’s Personnel Committee (hereinafter “Personnel Committee”) decided to delegate the Plaintiff the eligibility for reappointment on the grounds that “the Intervenor is difficult to view it as a senior citizen on his/her history, and the faculty’s expertise was inappropriate in the evaluation of a faculty; however, the faculty’s evaluation of a faculty also has an inappropriate aspect as a senior citizen’s teacher by undergoing the lowest evaluation, but it cannot be deemed that the teaching ability is insufficient due to the higher
On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that “the Intervenor was excluded from the scope of re-employment in the year 2017, according to the opinion of the 14th Teachers’ Personnel Committee and the decision of the appointing authority,” and that the Intervenor was removed from the scope of re-employment in the year 2017, and, if there is an objection, the Intervenor was notified of the explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notification (hereinafter “Notification of the refusal to re-election”). The Intervenor filed an objection upon submitting the explanation in writing with the Plaintiff on December 20, 2016. The 15th Teachers’ Personnel Committee, on December 22, 2016, determined that the Intervenor’s exclusion from reappointment by obtaining the lowest score from the expertise in the relevant subject of re-employment from the expertise in the relevant subject of evaluation and it is inappropriate for the
On December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the dismissal of the objection on the ground that the Intervenor was “not suitable for professional knowledge among the items to be assessed by the 15th Teachers’ Personnel Committee.”
(hereinafter “Notice of Dismissal of the instant objection”). The Intervenor appealed and requested the Defendant to review the appeal.
The defendant, on March 8, 2017, is reappointed to the intervenor by notification of dismissal of the objection of this case.