1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of decision on the petition examination;

A. On March 1, 2012, an intervenor was newly appointed as an E University photographic and video major assistant professor affiliated with the Plaintiff, and the appointment period on March 1, 2017 was from March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2018.

(A) Evidence 2. (b)

On September 27, 2017, E University notified the intervenors of the application for reappointment, and the Intervenor applied for reappointment.

On December 8, 2017 and December 18, 2017, the E University informed the intervenors of the schedule for stating their opinions related to the re-employment examination. On December 8, 2017, the guidance was attached to the following: “As a result of the Intervenor’s examination of the Intervenor’s teaching records, the Intervenor’s examination of the teaching records is to guide the Intervenor to give an opportunity to state his/her opinion because he/she fails to meet the educational and service evaluation, among the teaching and service evaluation necessary for re-employment, as he/she fails to meet the educational and service evaluation, and to submit his/her opinion by December 22, 2017.”

(A) Evidence of heading 2, B, or 3. (c)

On December 26, 2017, the intervenor participated in the E University Teachers Personnel Committee, and on the same day, the E University Teachers Personnel Committee decided to refuse to re-appoint the intervenor.

Plaintiff

On December 28, 2017, the board of directors of a corporation decided to reject the re-election of the Intervenor, and the Plaintiff corporation decided to reject the re-employment of the Intervenor on the same day on the grounds of “educational, academic, service rating, etc. for the Intervenor” (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition of re-employment”).

(A) evidence 2, B, and 4). ① The Intervenor’s assertion that the minimum criteria for the educational business evaluation score should be met is not reasonable, but according to the legitimate evaluation of the number of times of demotion, the Intervenor is likely to meet the minimum criteria for the educational business evaluation score.

(2) A corporation shall relate to the performance rating points for intervenors.