1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

purport.

A. The reasoning of the cited court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) addition, modification, and deletion of the text of the judgment of the first instance as stated in paragraph (2) below; and (b) addition, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) as stated in paragraph (3) are identical to the ground of the judgment of the first instance as well as addition of the judgment on new arguments in the trial; and (c) this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which added, changed, or deleted, shall be changed to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 3, “business evaluation standards” (hereinafter “business evaluation standards”) or “business evaluation regulations.”

On the third side of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the "30 points" shall be added to the "150 points of the basic score in the research field of 2009."

In Part 4, Part 3 of the first instance judgment, the term “education” in the “education” column 100 is considered to read “Asan Point” (80), the term “Aggravated Point*(A separate Do”) in the “Aggravated Point” in the “Aggravated Point (20)” in the “Aggravated Point (20)” in the “Aggravated Point (20).” * The additional point in the educational activities field on the Aggravated Check in the Performance Evaluation Mark is 80 points, and the additional point in the area of the Aggravated Activity field is 20 points, but all these points are considered to be a clerical error, so the parts are corrected as above.

In the first instance judgment, the part of the first instance judgment, “(the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff should be excluded from the total point because there is no basis for granting 20 additional points in the utilization area, but the total point of 800 points and the total point of 680 points calculated by the Defendant are already excluded from the additional points of the activities area, so it does not make a separate judgment thereon)” is modified as follows.

Since the additional points of 20 points for the area of activities of the plaintiff (the plaintiff) did not exist at the beginning, the total point is 680 points, not 680 points, and the points to be secured by the plaintiff for reappointment are 425 points but 62.5% of 660 points, not 425 points.