1. On May 18, 2016, the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of the revocation of voluntary retirement refusal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 1988, the Plaintiff was appointed as the assistant professor of the C University established and operated by the Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) and served as associate professor from April 1, 1995 as an associate professor from April 1, 200 to the teaching (retirement Age Guarantee).

B. The department of fashion design, to which the Plaintiff was affiliated, was enrolled in the year 2013 and seven students in the year 2014, and was abolished in the year 2015.

C. On January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for voluntary retirement to the Intervenor. On January 25, 2016, the Intervenor Faculty Committee recommended the Plaintiff to the president of C University as a person eligible for voluntary retirement.

C. On January 27, 2016, the president of the Cuniversity expressed his/her opinion that “The payment of honorary retirement allowances to the closed professor is not possible as a result of taking into account all circumstances, such as the financial situation of the school and the closure of the department to which he/she belongs,” and presented his/her opinion as an agenda item to the Intervenor’s Council. The Intervenor Council rejected the Plaintiff’s application for voluntary retirement with the consent of all participating directors on February 4, 2016.

The plaintiff was issued as the Ministry of Culture on February 29, 2016 and is in office.

E. On March 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition review seeking the revocation of the disposition rejecting the voluntary retirement with the Defendant. However, on May 18, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “The selection of the voluntary retirement beneficiary is not subject to the payment of the Plaintiff’s allowance irrelevant to the change in his/her legal status or status, and it cannot be deemed that the change in his/her status as a teacher did not occur even if the selection was not made.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【Unsatisfy ground for recognition, entry of Gap 6 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The intervenor in the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a person who is a professor belonging to a department which has been abolished in accordance with the “Principle of Faculty Restructuring following the Closure of Departments” since 206.