1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the whole purport of arguments as stated in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 16, 41, 43, Eul's Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 8, 10, 17 through 22 (including relevant numbers):

[Plaintiff’s assertion that the certificate Nos. 2(C University Employment Contract), Eul’s certificate No. 4(C University Research Contract), and Gap’s certificate No. 18(annual salary contract) were forged. However, according to the result of appraiser D’s written appraisal, since the Plaintiff’s name, address, resident registration number, etc. stated in each of the above contracts are recognized to be the Plaintiff’s written completion, each of the above contracts shall be deemed to have been duly concluded. The grounds pointed out by the Plaintiff alone are difficult to deem that each of the above contracts was forged and no other evidence exists to acknowledge it).

1) Status of the party to the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”)

C.C. (hereinafter referred to as “C.C.”)

(2) On June 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was appointed as an associate professor of the status of a faculty member prior to research on April 1, 2010, and was newly appointed as an associate professor of the status of a faculty member prior to research.

3) On April 28, 2010, an intervenor issued an order of personnel management to correct the Plaintiff’s position as “Assistant professor (Research)” from the “Assistant professor (Research)” on the ground that research performance falls short of the standards of associate professor. 4) The Plaintiff was reappointed on April 1, 201, April 1, 201, April 1, 201, and April 1, 2013, respectively, and served as C faculty by March 31, 2014.

B. (1) On November 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for deliberation on reappointment with respect to the Plaintiff. On January 21, 2014, the C faculty member personnel committee decided the Plaintiff’s decline from reappointment on the ground of “research lack (including research failure)” and decided to proceed with additional deliberation when the Plaintiff submitted research results by March 31, 2014, which is the expiration date. (2) The C faculty member of the CJ decided to proceed with additional deliberation on the Plaintiff on January 27, 2014.