1. It is confirmed that the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the reappointment of the Plaintiff on June 28, 2017, against the Plaintiff, is null and void.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Status 1) The Defendant’s University (hereinafter “Defendant University”)

(2) The Plaintiff is a person newly appointed as an assistant professor with the nursing department in the Defendant’s university as of March 1, 2015 to February 28, 2017, with the term of appointment from March 1, 2015 to February 1, 2017.

B. On October 26, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the expiration date of the term of appointment and applied for review of reappointment. On November 10, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted an application for review of reappointment and materials relating to review of reappointment to the Defendant. 2) On November 21, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the schedule for review of reappointment and interview. The teachers’ personnel committee of the Defendant’s university notified the Plaintiff of the date of review of reappointment. On December 19, 2016 and December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff was reappointed to the Plaintiff.

3) On December 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the reappointment to the Plaintiff on the ground that the result of examination for reappointment to the Plaintiff falls short of the standard points for the re-employment of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the first disposition rejecting the reappointment”).

C. On January 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers seeking revocation of the first disposition rejecting reappointment.

2) On March 8, 2017, the Appeal Committee for Teachers did not provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to present opinions, and applied the objective criteria for review of reappointment, and decided to revoke the first disposition of refusal of reappointment on the ground that there were significant procedural defects in the disposition of refusal of reappointment, such as not notifying the Plaintiff of the grounds for refusal of reappointment. D. The Defendant’s second disposition of refusal of reappointment against the Plaintiff was decided to revoke the first disposition of refusal of reappointment, and the Defendant, on May 18, 2017, re-appointed by supplementing procedural defects, accompanied by the criteria for review of reappointment, etc. as follows: