1. It is confirmed that the Defendant’s refusal to resign on December 29, 2016, against the Plaintiff, is null and void.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

. “Disposition rejecting the reappointment of this case”

(c) Article 9 (Attachment No. 1), such as the Regulations on the Examination for Appointment of Teachers by the Defendant University, shall meet the standards for deliberation by each area of the class (attached Form 3), and the average points for evaluating the duties of teachers shall be generally acquired at least above the average points for evaluating the duties of teachers (attached Form 3), and shall pass a deliberation by the Teachers Personnel Committee, taking into account the written opinions (Attachment No. 4) of the faculty specialized in the litigation. [Attachment No. 1] The Plaintiff’s achievements pertaining to the field of major shall be governed by the rules on the appointment of teaching staff and the rules on the evaluation of teaching staff of the Defendant University. (1) Article 7 (Terms and Procedures for Re-employment) ① The achievement of the Plaintiff at least four months before the expiration of the contract period shall meet the average points for evaluating the duties of teaching staff, and the Defendant shall not obtain the opportunity to re-election with the Plaintiff by taking into account the written opinions of the faculty specialized in the litigation. (2) The Defendant shall not obtain the new appointment agreement with the Plaintiff for 10 months prior 10 months to 20 months 10 months or 10 months (2 months).

2) The Regulations on the Evaluation of the University Teaching Services of the Defendant University stipulate the items to be assessed and the criteria for classification of each of the educational, research, and class work units and the criteria for classification. Of them, the rules on the classification of class work units (hereinafter “the examination rules of this case”).

I are as shown in Appendix 3, and especially as a problem in this case.