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.

On February 9, 2012, an intervenor in the process of the decision on the examination of a petition was appointed as a associate professor of C University established and operated by the plaintiff, with the term of appointment from February 9, 2012 to February 28, 2018.

On November 12, 2017, the Plaintiff informed the intervenors of the procedure for applying for the expiration of the term of appointment and reappointment, and the Intervenor applied for reappointment to the Plaintiff.

On December 12, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that “The average evaluation score of the teaching staff conducted during the period of appointment is less than 60 points, which is less than 10 points, may attend the teachers’ personnel committee held on December 27, 2017 or may submit a written statement of his/her opinion on the grounds for disqualification for reappointment pursuant to Article 9-3(2) of the Regulations on Appointment of the Plaintiff’s Faculty Members, and the Intervenor’s average evaluation score of the teaching staff conducted during the period of appointment is 28.24 points.

On December 27, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) held a teachers’ personnel committee and deliberated on whether to be reappointed after hearing the Intervenor’s opinions; and (b) on December 30, 2017, notified the Intervenor that “On February 28, 2018, the Plaintiff shall be retired ipso facto from reappointment on the ground that the average evaluation point of teaching staff conducted during the period of appointment falls under the grounds for refusal to be reappointed, and thus is excluded from reappointment.”

(2) On January 28, 2018, an intervenor filed a petition with the Defendant seeking revocation of the disposition of rejection of re-employment. On February 28, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the petition on the ground that “the instant disposition of rejection of re-employment is unlawful in the course of violating Article 53-2(6) of the Private School Act, since it cannot be deemed that the intervenor did not guarantee the opportunity to substantially state his/her opinion, and that there was no hindrance to preparing the procedure of appeal.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings is legitimate.