1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The plaintiff is a corporation established in accordance with the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Seoul National University (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul National University Act").

On March 1, 2005, an intervenor was appointed as C and an associate professor at the Seoul National University B graduate School C and an associate professor on March 1, 201, and was reappointed as an associate professor on December 28, 201 pursuant to Article 5 (2) of the Addenda to the Seoul National University Act (amended by December 27, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply).

On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the term of appointment will expire on February 28, 2017, in accordance with Article 18(1) of the Seoul National University Act on the appointment of full-time professors and assistant professors.

Plaintiff

B. On November 30, 2016, the Graduate School Personnel Committee decided to recommend participants to be promoted and appointed as professors on March 1, 2017. On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiff was notified of the results of the examination. On January 3 through 14, 2017, the Plaintiff’s Employment Review Committee decided not to guarantee the Intervenor’s retirement age. On January 16, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the period of appointment as teachers expires.

On February 16, 2017, an intervenor filed a petition with the Defendant seeking revocation of dismissal disposition on January 16, 2017, and filed a preliminary petition seeking revocation of promotion and retirement age guarantee rejection disposition on January 16, 2017.

On May 10, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the disposition of dismissal on January 16, 2017, 2017, citing the Intervenor’s primary claim, on the ground that “the notice of the expiration of the term of appointment of teachers by the Plaintiff was made without any review, by restricting the Intervenor’s right to apply for reappointment.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including the number of each branch office), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the whole purport of the lawsuit in this case, is legitimate, and the special law for improving the defendant's status of teacher in this case (hereinafter "the Teachers' Status Act").