1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision;

A. On August 24, 1994, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer at C University established and operated by the Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) and was promoted as an associate professor on April 1, 2001. From September 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was reappointed on a yearly basis, and the last period of reappointment was from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2014.

B. On May 1, 2014, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the period of appointment expires and that he/she may apply for deliberation on reappointment. On May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for deliberation on reappointment to the Intervenor.

C. On June 12, 2014, the Intervenor decided to refuse the reappointment of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s evaluation score (=1.22 points in the evaluation of core responsibility, ② KRW 3.40 points in the evaluation of extension of the research creative activities, ② KRW 3.40 points in the evaluation of extension of the research creative activities, ② KRW 3.40 points in the evaluation of extension of the 35.25 points), which is the standard for reappointment, was below 70 points, following a deliberation by the teachers’ personnel committee. On June 30, 2014, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of reappointment.

On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition review with the Defendant seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting reappointment, and on September 24, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition (hereinafter “instant decision”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision of this case is legitimate

A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, an unlawful intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the review of reappointment on May 1, 2014 in violation of Article 53-2(4) of the Private School Act, and requested the Plaintiff to submit an application for reappointment and materials for review of reappointment by May 12, 2014, while notifying the Plaintiff of the review of reappointment. This only grants the Plaintiff the period of 11 days shorter than the 15-day period guaranteed under Article 53-2(5) of the Private School Act, and Article 53-2(7) of the Private School Act.