1. On January 15, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of a disposition rejecting the reappointment between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor (2013-427).

1. Details of the decision;

A. On March 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer in the social welfare department of C University established and operated by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “instant University”).

B. On November 24, 2003, when the university of this case was staying in the United States in order to visit the university, the plaintiff was notified that the university of this case will be deemed to have no intention to file an application for re-contract without submitting research materials, etc. necessary for re-contract by November 28, 2003. The plaintiff returned to the university of this case on December 27, 2003 and submitted research materials, etc. to the university of this case on December 4, 2003.

D. However, the university of this case decided to refuse to renew the contract with the plaintiff on December 11, 2003 at the board of directors held on the 30th day of the same month as the teachers’ personnel committee held on December 11, 2003. The defendant joining the defendant on January 7, 2004 on the ground that "the plaintiff did not submit any research material by the date on which he submitted it, and his qualification as professor is insufficient."

2. As of 29. 29. notified the Plaintiff that the contract term expires, the Plaintiff refused to renew the contract.

(2) On October 14, 2005, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development requested revocation of the first refusal of reappointment to the Special Committee on Appeal against Teachers, but received a decision to dismiss the appeal on February 14, 2006.

On May 2, 2006, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the above dismissal decision (Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap16410). The above court held that if the defendant joining the defendant had followed the appropriate recontract review procedure against the plaintiff on December 7, 2006, the plaintiff would have submitted sufficient research products to meet the minimum standard for recontract research.