The defendant's point is each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the four floors of the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as compulsory provisions for reappointment of a articles of incorporation, personnel regulations, or employment contract, or repeated renewal of an employment contract, a teacher of a private school whose employment period has expired shall lose his/her status as a university teacher upon expiration of his/her employment period (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da52647, Mar. 9, 2006, etc.). A building listed in the attached list is owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant is the part listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list among the fourth floor of the building.

Facts in possession may be recognized by adding up the purpose of all pleadings to the entries or images of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4.

The defendant's right to possess a professor's laboratory can not be found in addition to those arising from the teacher's status in a private school. Accordingly, in order to deny the plaintiff's request for extradition, the defendant must assert and prove the special circumstances stated in the above Supreme Court decision. The defendant's assertion and certification are not sufficient.

The decision to revoke the disposition to refuse the reappointment of a teacher whose term of appointment has expired among the decision of the Appeal Review Committee for Teachers is to revoke the disposition to refuse the reappointment of a teacher, and to impose procedural obligations on the relevant school juristic person, etc. to re-appoint the relevant teacher, and does not necessarily have the same legal effect as the relevant teacher is re-appointed (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da6953, Sept. 9, 2010, etc.). Therefore, it is in accordance with such context that the Seoul Southern District Court 2021, which the Defendant raised against the Plaintiff, filed against the Plaintiff, filed a claim for compensation for damages equivalent to the amount of benefits not paid in itself, in 10152.

The Defendant’s assertion and certification regarding illegality of a disposition rejecting reappointment cannot prevent the Plaintiff’s request for extradition.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.