1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of decision on the petition examination;

A. An intervenor is a school foundation that establishes and operates C University.

B. On March 1, 1997, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer and promoted to the associate professor via an associate professor. However, on February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a conditional contract with the Intervenor to meet the conditions of reappointment for one year from March 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016, as a result of deliberation by the Intervenor Personnel Committee (hereinafter “Personnel Committee”) on February 16, 2015.

C. On March 4, 2016, the Minister of Education notified the Plaintiff of the expiration of the term of appointment. On February 16, 2016, the president of Cuniversity notified the Plaintiff of the expiration of the term of appointment. On April 2, 2016, the president of Cuniversity issued a disposition of refusal on the ground that he/she was delegated by the Intervenor’s board of directors on February 16, 2016, on the ground that he/she “the Plaintiff

(hereinafter referred to as “previous disposition of refusal to re-election”).

On March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Defendant on March 31, 2016. On May 18, 2016, the Defendant revoked the previous disposition of refusal to re-election on the grounds that the Intervenor did not comply with the notification period for re-election, etc., and that the Plaintiff did not give a substantial opportunity to state his/her opinion, and that the violation of the duty of prohibition of concurrent office cannot be a legitimate ground for refusal to re-election pursuant to

(hereinafter referred to as “previous review and decision on a petition”). (e)

On June 8, 2016, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the procedures for review of reappointment are resumed, and notified the Plaintiff of the rejection of reappointment on August 30, 2016, following the procedures for review of reappointment.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant rejection disposition against reappointment.” The grounds for rejection of reappointment expressed by the intervenor in the notice of rejection for reappointment are as follows:

Persons eligible for reappointment shall be subject to the annual average of the results of evaluation of their achievements in each area during the term of appointment.