1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs of supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following parts, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 5 of the decision of the first instance court was written by " October 23, 2018" in Part 5 of the decision of the first instance.

Part 8 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be in accordance with the following subparagraphs from 20 to 18 of the judgment of the first instance.

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in evidence Nos. 8, 22, and 24.

(1) Article 4, 5, and 6 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of the Plaintiff’s Faculty Members provides for the period and timing of evaluation, the committee for evaluation management, and the evaluation procedures, and Article 8 provides for the procedure that, if an objection is raised as a result of the examination, the Committee may request the review to the Committee within seven days after receipt of the notification of the results of evaluation. Article 9 and attached Table 1 provides for the allocation of points by the field of evaluation of the Plaintiff’s faculty member’s position, and Article 10, 11, 12 and attached Table 2, 3, and 4 provide for detailed evaluation items.

(2) The Plaintiff: (a) during the period from September 1, 2016 to August 31, 2018, after the Intervenor was reinstated, conducted a faculty member evaluation on three occasions in accordance with the Teachers Job Evaluation Regulations during the period from September 1, 2016 to August 31, 2018; and (b) notified the Intervenor of the results of the evaluation indicating the marks and the evaluation marks for each evaluation field for each year.

After receiving the notice of evaluation results from the plaintiff each year, the intervenor applied for the disclosure of information on the grounds, data, and reasons for each evaluation field based on the premise of review of evaluation results and the implementation of procedures for raising objections, and received information on the grounds and reasons for calculation by evaluation field for each year from the plaintiff, and based on this, calculated the evaluation points by each evaluation field.