1. On December 27, 2012, the Defendant confirmed that the disposition of refusal to re-election against the Plaintiff is null and void.

2. The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a school juristic person operating C University (former name: D University; hereinafter “Defendant University”). The Plaintiff is a teacher of the Defendant University reappointed as an assistant professor every two years from September 1, 1998 to September 1, 201, who was appointed as a civil engineering and full-time lecturer at the Defendant University on April 1, 1993 and was appointed as an assistant professor on April 1, 1996.

B. The Rules on Personnel Management of the Faculty of the Defendant University provide for the reappointment of faculty members as follows, and the Defendant University’s “Promotion and Re-employment Evaluation Table of Faculty Members” (hereinafter “Examination Standards of this case”) is as listed in attached Table 2.

Article 41 (Examination for Re-Appointment) (1) The teachers' personnel committee shall request a person subject to re-election to submit documents necessary for examining his/her reappointment, and shall conduct an evaluation of his/her achievements (the total point of 80 points and attached Table 2) in accordance

(2) The teachers' personnel committee shall conduct an objective and fair evaluation of the results of reappointment of teachers under paragraph (1).

Article 42 (Request for Consent to Re-Appointment) (1) The president shall comprehensively consider the results of the examination to seek consent to select persons who have proposed re-election and to the personnel committee.

(2) The personnel committee shall determine whether to agree on the proposal for reappointment with the consent of a majority, and the chairperson shall determine it.

Article 43 (Exclusion from Recommendation for Re-Appointment) (3) Persons whose total score of 80 points for the evaluation of the results of reappointment does not exceed 35 points.

C. When the expiration of the period of reappointment was scheduled on August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted review data for reappointment to the Defendant University on or around May 15, 2012, based on review data submitted by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s explanation, etc. as indicated in attached Table 3, the Plaintiff received 30 points as indicated in attached Table 3, and fell short of 35 points, which are the minimum standard for reappointment in accordance with the instant review criteria.

Accordingly, the defendant university.