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.

1. Details of the decision;

A. On March 1, 2004, the intervenor was appointed as a full-time lecturer at C University established and operated by the plaintiff, and was promoted to the assistant professor on April 1, 2006 and the associate professor on April 1, 2009.

An intervenor was reappointed on April 1, 2014 by setting the term of appointment from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2017.

B. On November 18, 2015, through a resolution of the board of directors on November 18, 2015, the term of appointment for the case of re-appointing following the occupational evaluation of Article 21(1) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff, which was prescribed as "Article 21(1) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff (hereinafter referred to as "the term of appointment

C. On April 7, 2017, based on Article 5-3(2), etc. of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials stipulating that “if the appointment period expires during a semester, the last day of the semester to which the date on which the appointment period expires shall be deemed to expire shall be deemed to be the expiration date of the appointment period”, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that his appointment period expires on August 31, 2017, which is the last day of the semester.

On April 24, 2017, an intervenor applied for deliberation on re-election by specifying the term of appointment that the intervenor wants to the plaintiff as three years.

On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff’s teachers’ personnel committee held on May 1, 2017 decided that “The Intervenor’s teachers’ personnel committee shall grant 25 additional points to all teachers including intervenors in the student management field, considering that the Intervenor’s teachers’ evaluation score falls short of the re-examination standards but it was difficult to evaluate at the time of the Intervenor’s evaluation of teachers’

E. The Plaintiff’s board of directors held on May 26, 2017, held on May 26, 2017, was unable to collect the amount of responsibility due to the excessive amount of waste.

“The Plaintiff’s board of directors held on June 23, 2017 decided that the Intervenor will not be reappointed, but the Plaintiff’s board of directors would withdraw the existing resolution and re-appoint the Intervenor.

F. On June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff, on the part of the intervenors, re-appointed the Intervenor for a period of one year (from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2018).