1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the decision are the same as the pertinent part of the reasons of the first instance judgment (from No. 7 to No. 16) in addition to the deletion of “the Act on the Status of Teachers” (hereinafter “the Act”) No. 3 of the first instance judgment. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. On May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a decision to extend the period of reappointment of the Intervenor on May 25, 2018 (from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2019) to two years (from August 31, 2019) after the instant disposition, and as long as the part of the instant disposition which reduced the period of reappointment of the Intervenor to one year has already been invalidated, the Defendant’s revocation of the instant disposition of shortening the period of reappointment does not have the interest to bring an action to revoke the instant decision. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit

B. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff holds a board of directors meeting on May 25, 2018 and makes a resolution on the renewal of appointment of a full-time teacher (hereinafter referred to as "decision on renewal of appointment") with the purport of extending the period of appointment of the intervenor from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2019, by setting the period of appointment of the intervenor from September 1 to August 31, 2019.

(2) On June 15, 2018 and June 25, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a written notice of the decision on extended appointment to the intervenors by registered mail on two occasions on June 15, 2018 and June 25, 2018, but returned due to the absence of a closed door. Accordingly, on July 5, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a text message to the intervenors on July 5, 2018, stating that “The confirmation of detailed personnel details was made inasmuch as the notice of extended appointment was returned due to the absence of a closed door,” and it is recognized that the Intervenor became aware of the decision on extended appointment by receiving contact from the social welfare department office after the conference of the faculty members of the pertinent university of this case on August 24, 2018.”