1. On February 8, 2017, the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of revocation of reappointment (2016-782) between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was appointed as a full-time lecturer at C University established and operated by the Plaintiff Corporation on March 1, 2002, and was reappointed on an annual basis thereafter.

B. On December 22, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of his refusal to be reappointed.

Accordingly, the Intervenor filed a petition review on January 22, 2016. On April 6, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the said refusal of reappointment on the ground that “The review of reappointment was unlawful for the first semester of 1, 2015 (from March 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016) even though the period of employment for the Intervenor was 1, 2015 and 2 semesters (from February 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016).”

C. On May 25, 2016, the C University Faculty Evaluation Committee confirmed that the results of the two-semester lectures on participants were D and decided that they did not meet the standards for reappointment.

C. On May 30, 2016, the teachers personnel committee of the C University all levels D as a result of the lectures of the first and second semesters in 2015, which was decided by the Intervenor that this constitutes a ground for termination of the contract.

C. After hearing the intervenor's opinions on July 22, 2016, the C University teachers' personnel committee proposed the plaintiff's board of directors to exclude the intervenor from reappointment.

Plaintiff

On August 30, 2016, the board of directors decided to dismiss an intervenor from reappointment, and on November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the intervenor of his refusal to be reappointed.

(hereinafter “Refusal to be reappointed of this case”). D.

An intervenor filed a petition on December 6, 2016, and the defendant filed a petition on February 8, 2017, stating that "the rules of this case (hereinafter "the rules of this case") governing the appointment of foreign teachers by the plaintiff shall be uniformly refused to re-appoint a teacher who has received an evaluation of the lower 25% of the lecture evaluation." Thus, Article 53-2 (6) and (7) of the Private School Act violates Article 53-2 (7).

The response rate of the lecture of the first semester in 2015 is average 5.4%, the response rate of the lecture of the second semester in 2015 is 78.85%, and in particular, the response rate of the lecture of the first semester in 2015 is 10%.