1. The defendant's disposition rejecting the reappointment against the plaintiff on July 17, 2014 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 2012, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer with the term of contract from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2014.

B. When the name of a full-time lecturer was abolished in accordance with the amendment of Article 14(2) of the former Higher Education Act (amended by Act No. 10866, Jul. 21, 2011; Act No. 11212, Jan. 26, 2012; hereinafter the same), the Defendant issued the Plaintiff’s class as an assistant professor on July 22, 2012; and the period of appointment, etc. was notified that the decision will be made later after the amendment of the school regulations and relevant regulations.

C. On October 31, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff as a full-time lecturer on July 22, 2012, who was ordered as an assistant professor at the full-time lecturer at the expiration of the contract period ( February 28, 2014).

On December 26, 2013, the teachers' personnel committee of the Gyeongnam National Institute of Science and Technology decided that it is reasonable to set the term of appointment of the plaintiff from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2017 without examining the appointment of the same position position, and to prepare a contract again for the plaintiff.

E. On December 31, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting re-employment on the ground that the Plaintiff could not be re-contracted because it failed to meet the requirements for appointment of a single job title contract, upon examining the research business status, etc. in accordance with the procedures prescribed in Article 7 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teachers, etc. of the Gannam National Institute of Science and Technology (amended by Regulations No. 185, Jun. 13, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the contract.

F. On January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Appeal Committee for Teachers against the disposition of refusal of reappointment. On March 26, 2014, the said Committee rendered a decision to revoke the disposition of refusal of reappointment on the grounds of procedural defects that the Defendant did not give the Plaintiff an opportunity to state his/her opinion.

G. On April 11, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she will re-examine the appointment of the same occupation-based contract.