1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a school juristic person established and operated under the Private School Act, which establishes and operates B University.

B. From September 1990 to March 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a labor contract with B University operated by the Defendant for a part-time lecturer (except from September 1999, 200, and 2001) (a contract period from the beginning date to the ending date of each semester). From the philosophy of B University and College, the Plaintiff stronged “Korean philosophical history,” “Dongyang philosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolos

C. Around March 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with B University and part-time instructors. The term of the said labor contract is from March 4, 2013 to June 21, 2013.

On June 7, 2013, the Plaintiff received notice from B University philosophical Division C and Department C that it is difficult to commission the Plaintiff as a part-time lecturer from February 2013 (hereinafter “instant notice”).

E. A university operated by the Defendant is commissioned by the president as a part-time lecturer through the faculty (department) professor meeting in charge of the relevant subject, pursuant to the provisions on the commission of part-time instructors.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including, if any, various numbers), witness D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s seeking confirmation of the Plaintiff’s status as an instructor against the Defendant does not have any interest in confirmation as to the past legal relationship. 2) The Plaintiff is merely disqualified from the Plaintiff’s status as an instructor due to the expiration of the term, and may be appointed again during the next semester.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s seeking confirmation of the status of an instructor against the Defendant is not an effective and appropriate means in dispute resolution.

B. We examine the judgment, and the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation was made without setting the period with B University.