1. The appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the 6th of the judgment of the first instance court, “The same method as the first instance court” was calculated on the basis of the full scores of 50 points at 1/2 of the total score of 2013, which is more favorable to intervenors, and the method of converting it into the full scores at 20th of the 20th of the total score, was recognized in the lawsuit for cancellation of the disposition for refusal of reappointment (Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap714, Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap714), and the Plaintiff also expressed the same opinion as that recognized in C’s lawsuit to the extent that the full scores of each item are complied with.

According to the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the following additional contents are added (the intervenor asserts that the previous judgment is against the Supreme Court Decision 2010Du17403 Decided February 10, 201, which states that "the criteria for review of new appointment shall be prepared in advance as an objective provision." However, the above Supreme Court decision is related to the case where the issue was not prescribed by school regulations, and this case is different, and as long as the previous judgment becomes lawful, the defendant is bound by the previous judgment) from the 10th "from the 68.57th "from the 12th "from the 68.57th "," and the 50th "the 50th "the 2nd semester expanded 2013" score as follows.

An intervenor is an area in which it is impossible for the intervenor to receive points properly regardless of the intervenor's efforts, ability, etc., and the plaintiff cannot receive points in the extension of policy evaluation.