1. On October 24, 2013, the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of revocation of the reappointment between the Plaintiff and the president of the Cuniversity (No. 2013-193).

A. The Defendant filed a claim. The Defendant, as follows, reduced the additional points in volunteer service areas among the standards for evaluation of achievements as 30 points, excluded 50 points from the president’s additional points, and adjusted the Plaintiff’s basic service points in 2009 as 100 points, adjusted the additional points as 30 points, and calculated the Plaintiff’s average points as 423.1 points by recognizing the basic service points in the research field in 2010 as 60 points, and then dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on October 24, 2013 on the ground that the basic service points in the research field in 2010 fall short of 425 points corresponding to the criteria for reappointment (=amended total point 680 points x existing re-employment 500 points ± existing 800 points).

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case"). [The defendant's achievement evaluation score (the bottom part is any item that differs from the original point)] The basic points (680) added to the total of the academic research service points (200) (200) basic points (150) additional points (10) basic points (150) additional points (10) additional points (100) additional points (50) additional points (50) additional points) * (50) basic points ? (50) additional points - (150) - (10) - 30 10 150 10 10 30 - 45 - 30 - 45 - 206.3 2009 - 28 150 0 - 40 - 45 - 4810 - 608 - 2010 - 2629 - 20129.31.20 additional points for each corrective check 20.31.2

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4 through 10, Gap evidence 13, 16, Eul evidence 16, Eul 16, 17, 18 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff obtained 100 points out of the full scores in volunteer activities in the year 2008 from the evaluation of achievements previously conducted by the president of Cuniversity, and 50 points out of the full scores each year from the additional points of president.

Nevertheless, unlike the existing performance evaluation rules, the defendant adopted a calculation method that excludes both specific points, resulting in unilaterally disadvantageous consequences to the plaintiff.

(b) in addition;