The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the petition review and decision;

A. B (B; hereinafter referred to as “B”) is a person who was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer at D University operated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “university of this case”) on September 1, 2007 and was reappointed as an assistant professor on September 1, 2013 and served as a faculty member specializing in interpretation and education in the F faculty from September 31, 2019 to August 31, 2019 (the last term of appointment: from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2019).

B. On April 11, 2019, the Plaintiff notified B of the fact that the term of appointment expires and that B may apply for deliberation on reappointment. On April 29, 2019, B submitted an application for deliberation on reappointment.

(c)

On June 11, 2019, the Plaintiff notified B of his refusal to re-appoint the Plaintiff on June 25, 2019 (hereinafter “instant refusal to re-appoint the Plaintiff”); the specific grounds therefor are as follows: (a) Article 6(2) of the Regulations on the Appointment and Management of Foreign Faculty Members (Attached Table 1) [Attachment 1] of the Rules on the Appointment and Management of Foreign Faculty Members (i.e., the total of 100 points (i., the total of 70 points of the fixed-term evaluation (30 points of the fixed-term evaluation)]; and (b) the re-employment criteria (65 points) under the said Table].

(d)

B, on June 27, 2019, dissatisfied with the instant disposition of refusal to re-election, filed a petition with the Defendant on June 27, 2019 to the effect that (i) the examination of re-election is unfair, as it was reflected only in the evaluation of the three semesters immediately preceding (2 years and four semesters) not in the evaluation of the total employment period of the Plaintiff, and (ii) it was not informed by the Plaintiff of the evaluation criteria for re-election, and (iii) it was unfair that the evaluation of re-election was conducted without being informed of the establishment or amendment of the regulations

E. On September 4, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the disposition of refusal to re-appoint the instant case (hereinafter “decision to review the instant appeal”) for the following reasons.

① Article 8(1) of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act (Prohibition of Discrimination) Article 8(1) of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act as a deaf-mute who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment.