1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On December 1, 2002, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor was appointed as a 1-year contract assistant professor at the Seoul Digital University (hereinafter “instant University”), a distance college-type lifelong educational establishment established and operated by the Plaintiff.

In February 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Intervenor renewed the contract and appointed the Defendant’s assistant intervenor as assistant professor 5. The contract term is from March 1, 2004 to February 28, 2006, and the annual salary shall be KRW 43.1 million as annual salary system, and the contract for the appointment of teachers shall be concluded with the effect that the Plaintiff shall be automatically dismissed if the contract is not renewed by re-contract.

On March 1, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the appointment of teachers with the same content as the above employment contract, on March 1, 2005, on the part of the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s rank and salary class as assistant professor’s class 6, and annual salary amounting to KRW 46 million.

The Plaintiff, as a personnel management standard on July 8, 2005, established the personnel regulations for teachers and staff and set forth in the Addenda as follows: “The evaluation of the achievements of teachers and the evaluation of the performance of employees shall be subject to a grace period after the enactment of the relevant detailed regulations.” However, the Plaintiff did not enact any provision on the criteria for the appointment, reappointment, conversion of fixed-term teachers at

Accordingly, on February 27, 2006, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the above provision on teachers’ personnel management and the need at the time of school, etc.; and (b) the Plaintiff, upon the Plaintiff’s oral instruction from the president of the University of this case, notified the Plaintiff that the term of the contract would be extended until a new provision was enacted with respect to the 23 full-time full-time faculty, including the Defendant Intervenor, who was subject to application for a fixed-term conversion examination as of February 28, 2006.

On the other hand, the defendant assistant intervenor.