1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was appointed as D and a full-time lecturer at C University on March 1, 2004, and was promoted to the assistant professor on April 1, 2006, and was reappointed on March 1, 2010 (the appointment period: until February 28, 2014), and is a school foundation that establishes and operates C University.

B. On September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”), but the Intervenor appealed to the instant dismissal disposition and filed a petition for review of the appeal against the Defendant. On November 12, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision to change the instant dismissal disposition to the period of three months from the suspension of office.

The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above decision, filed an administrative litigation, but lost at the court of first instance on June 13, 2013 (Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap44119, hereinafter “prior judgment”), and the above judgment was dismissed (Seoul High Court 2013Nu20037), and the appeal was finalized around December 2, 2013 at the court of first instance (Seoul High Court 2013Nu2037), and on May 15, 2014 (Supreme Court 2014Du2959).

C. On June 19, 2014, the president of Cuniversity notified the intervenors of the fact that the term of appointment expires and that the Intervenor may apply for deliberation on reappointment pursuant to Article 53-2(4) of the Private School Act. On July 3, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application for deliberation on reappointment with the president of Cuniversity.

On October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of his intention not to be reappointed on October 27, 2014 after deliberation of reappointment on October 7, 2014 by the C University Teachers Personnel Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Teacher Personnel Committee”) and the grounds not to be re-appointed as follows ① or ④.

(hereinafter “instant refusal disposition of re-employment” (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”). ① Non-existence of the research field - Results of a faculty member’s achievement evaluation by the faculty member evaluation committee, the “E (F Research Institute, Sept. 2, 2010; hereinafter “this case’s research performance”) out of the research performance submitted by the Intervenor does not constitute the basic research performance required for re-employment, and thus, the Intervenor’s research performance at 120% is 128.