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 the disposition;

A. On March 1, 2017, the Intervenor joining the Defendant was operated by the school foundation C, and was newly appointed as an assistant professor in the aviation and tourism management department aviation and navigation service department of A University, the Plaintiff of which is the president, as an assistant professor.

(Period of appointment until February 28, 2018).(b)

A. From December 6, 2017 to December 22, 2017, the Teachers Personnel Committee of A University deliberated on whether to be reappointed with the Defendant joining the Defendant, and decided not to be reappointed with the Defendant’s Intervenor on the ground that the research minimum and minimum general level of deliberation on the research industry of the Defendant joining the Defendant did not meet the requirements for reappointment prescribed in Article 31 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of A University Teachers. On December 28, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal of reappointment (hereinafter “instant refusal decision”).

C. On January 29, 2018, the Defendant filed a petition review with the Defendant seeking revocation of the decision rejecting the reappointment of the instant case under 2018-98. On April 25, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision revoking the decision rejecting the reappointment of the instant case (hereinafter “instant petition review decision”).

In the course of examining the reappointment of the Intervenor joining the Defendant, the Plaintiff applied the “Research 1,300 points (based on four years)”, which is the requirement for reappointment as required by Article 31 of the Regulation on the Personnel Management of Faculty Members of A University, as the standard of 162.5 points divided into one semester (=1,300 points x 1/8), but the continuity and long-term continuity of the thesis, academic journal, author’s book, etc., which may be recognized as research business, are required. Thus, it is too excessive to require the Intervenor joining the Defendant, who is not only the one semester, to demand for deliberation points divided into a four-year standard research business reputation, and thus, cannot be recognized as a reasonable criteria for the examination of reappointment.

The plaintiff asserts that there is no problem during the period subject to evaluation since the plaintiff provided the defendant's intervenor with an opportunity to submit research papers by December 2017, but the defendant's intervenor is first appointed.