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 disposition;

A. On March 30, 1998, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was appointed as an assistant professor of the traditional religious arts department at C University established and operated by the Plaintiff.

An intervenor was reappointed as an assistant professor for a fixed period of two years on March 1, 2001 and March 1, 2003, and was reappointed as an associate professor for a fixed period of two years on March 1, 2005.

B. On November 1, 2006, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors that they will be dismissed from office on the expiration date of the period of reappointment.

An intervenor filed a lawsuit to nullify the invalidity of denial of reappointment against the plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap50337), and on July 15, 2010, the court rendered a judgment to the effect that the refusal of reappointment was null and void on the grounds that there was a defect in the review procedure for reappointment as provided by the Private School Act, etc., and that judgment was finalized on May 29, 2014.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da78177). C.

On September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff’s teachers personnel committee notified the intervenors that they should submit an application for reappointment of teachers and research records, etc., and on October 20, 2014, the Intervenor submitted an application for reappointment and research records.

On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff’s personnel committee of teachers submitted by the Intervenor to the Intervenor does not constitute research performance under the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff. Therefore, the Intervenor notified the Intervenor of re-submission of research performance in English, which is a major of the Intervenor. On November 10, 2014, the Intervenor explained the reasons why the research performance submitted on November 10, 2014 should be recognized as a research performance for the examination of

On December 10, 2014, the teachers' personnel committee of the Plaintiff decided not to re-appoint the Intervenor.

On December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of his refusal to be reappointed on the ground that his research performance submitted by the Intervenor falls short of the standards for reappointment as a result of the application of C University regulations.

(hereinafter “Notification of Refusal of Reappointment”) D.

On January 19, 2015, an intervenor reviews a petition against the defendant regarding the notice of refusal to re-election of this case.