1. On January 5, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that the disposition rejecting the reappointment against the Plaintiff is null and void.

2. The defendant.

Basic Facts

A. The Defendant is a school foundation that establishes and operates the C University (hereinafter “C University”), and the Plaintiff was reappointed as a full-time lecturer on March 1, 200 and as a full-time lecturer every one year from February 28, 2010. On March 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was reappointed as a full-time lecturer on March 1, 2010, and was reappointed as E and an assistant professor every one year from March 30, 2012 after being promoted as E and an assistant professor, and was reappointed as a full-time teacher (E and an assistant professor) on December 1, 2012 and on March 1, 2015, he/she was reappointed as a full-time teacher (E and an assistant professor) on February 28, 2017.

B. On January 6, 2017, the Defendant’s chief director rendered a decision to refuse the reappointment of the Plaintiff on the ground of the lower standard points (64.9 points out of 70 points of the success standard) and the lower responsibilities failure to satisfy the absolute requirements (12.0 point out of 33 cc of the total number of 33 ccs of the responsibility), and notified the Plaintiff on January 16, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition rejecting reappointment”). C.

The details of the disposition rejecting the reappointment of this case among the provisions of the defendant and C shall be as shown in attached Form 3.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), procedural defects in the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition rejecting re-employment of this case asserted by the parties to the entire pleadings, pursuant to Article 53-2 (6) of the Private School Act, the appointing authority who has received the application for deliberation on re-employment shall notify the relevant teacher of whether he/she is reappointed or not at least two months before the expiration date of the term of appointment, and since the plaintiff's term of appointment is up to February 28, 2017, the defendant shall have notified the relevant teacher of whether he/she is reappointed by at least December 28, 2016, and the defendant notified the plaintiff of the decision refusing re-employment on January 16, 2017. The decision refusing re-employment of this case violates Article 53-2

The defendant's notification of refusal to re-appoint the defendant on February 28, 2017, the expiration date of the term of appointment.