1. Revocation of the Defendant’s refusal to recommend the appointment of the president of the B University on December 15, 2014.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is serving as a professor of the Department of Life Science at National University B (hereinafter “the University”).

B. According to Article 24 of the Public Educational Officials Act, Articles 12-2 and 12-3 of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials, and Article 3 of the University Regulations, “Regulations on the Selection and Recommendation of Candidates for the President of the University” provides for the establishment and organization of the Committee for the Selection of Candidates for the President of the University, which is necessary matters concerning the selection and recommendation of candidates for the President of the University of this case, the recruitment and announcement of candidates for the President, the establishment

C. As stipulated in the foregoing provision, the selection procedure of the 18th president of the University of this case was carried out, and as a result of voting conducted on October 17, 2014 at the committee of recommending candidates for appointment of president of the University of this case, the Plaintiff obtained the greatest number of votes, and C professor obtained the greatest number of votes thereafter.

On November 3, 2014, the university of this case recommended the Plaintiff as the first candidate for the president of the 18th university of this case, and C as the second candidate for the president of the 18th university of this case.

E. On December 15, 2014, the Defendant sent to the president of the instant university, following deliberation by the Committee for Personnel Committee of Public Educational Officials pursuant to Article 24(6) of the Public Educational Officials Act, a letter of public notice of “request for re-recommendation of a candidate for general appointment” to the effect that the Defendant would not recommend the president of the instant university, who recommended the instant university after deliberation by the president of the instant university and the Personnel Committee of Public Educational Officials.

(hereinafter “Refusal to recommend the appointment of this case”). (hereinafter “this case’s refusal to recommend the appointment of this case”) / [based ground for recognition ] without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 7-1 through 4, and Gap evidence 8-2, results of fact inquiry to B university of this court, purport of whole pleadings, and purport of whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion of this case is as follows.