1. The Defendant is reappointed on December 7, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenors, respectively.

The details and details of the disposition taken by the Intervenor B, and C, which was established and operated by the Plaintiff on March 1, 2005, were appointed as a full-time lecturer at the E University, on April 1, 2007, as an associate professor, and on April 1, 2010, as an associate professor. The Intervenor D was appointed as a full-time lecturer at the E University on March 1, 2007, and was promoted as an associate professor on April 1, 2009 and as an associate professor on April 1, 2013.

On November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff amended Article 39-2(1) of the Plaintiff’s articles of association and Article 21(1) of the Rules on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff, thereby amending the re-election period from three to one year of a contracting teacher.

On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that “the period of appointment of the Intervenor expires on August 31, 2016,” and notified the Intervenor that “the Intervenor was reappointed to the period of appointment for one year (from September 1, 2016 to August 31, 2017)” (hereinafter “instant notification”).

The Intervenor C and D filed a petition review with the Defendant on October 6, 2016, and the Intervenor B filed a petition for revocation of the instant notification on October 7, 2016.

The defendant on December 7, 2016, "the intervenors are reappointed by the notification of this case for a period of one year, despite the fact that they were reappointed for a period of three years, which constitutes an unfavorable disposition against the intervenor's will.

The Plaintiff, based on objective grounds such as education of students, academic research, evaluation of the guidance for students, etc., was not conducted on the basis of the procedures set forth in the Private School Act, but did not take an examination for reappointment in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Private School Act, was subject to disadvantageous disposition that reduces the appointment period of intervenors from three to one year, which is unlawful.

Furthermore, the plaintiff could set the term of appointment for a period other than one year, if necessary, according to the revised rules on the personnel management of teachers, but the plaintiff has gone through objective procedures for the appointment of students, academic research, and guidance for students during the previous term of appointment.