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 the decision;

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates the C University (hereinafter “the University”), and the Intervenor is a person who was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer belonging to the Social Welfare Department of the University on March 1, 2002.

B. Since the Plaintiff issued a disposition of refusal to re-election against the Intervenor on January 7, 2004, the Plaintiff issued such disposition four times in total, and the Intervenor asserted that the above disposition of refusal to re-election is illegal and continued legal disputes, including administrative litigation.

C. On August 18, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that “The Plaintiff’s board of directors, on August 17, 2017, decided that the Intervenor be reinstated as an assistant professor of the instant university as an assistant professor of the instant university, based on the period of employment from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2018.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) d.

On September 19, 2017, the Intervenor asserted that “the Plaintiff voluntarily reduced the term of appointment to one year without consultation with the Intervenor, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked.” The Intervenor filed a petition for appeal against the Defendant pursuant to Article 9 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status and the Protection of Educational Activities (hereinafter “Special Act on the Status of Teachers”).

On November 15, 2017, the defendant issued the first refusal disposition of re-election to the intervenor on February 29, 2004 and then issued the first refusal disposition of re-election to the intervenor on four occasions in total until 2017. Such refusal disposition is found to be unlawful by the defendant's decision or the court's decision. ② The intervenor is appointed as a full-time lecturer for two years at the time of new appointment in 2002; ③ the plaintiff is reappointed for a period of one year after shortening the existing employment period, and the plaintiff does not go through all the procedures provided for in Article 53-2 of the Private School Act, such as giving the intervenor an opportunity to state his opinion or notifying the reason for shortening the re-election period specifically. ④