1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 2012, the Plaintiff was appointed as an assistant professor B at the ordinary university’s college of education and was appointed as the same person and associate professor on March 1, 2014, and is in service until now.

B. On December 5, 2014, the Defendant confirmed the payment plan of performance-based incentives for faculty members in 2014 through a meeting of the Deliberation Committee on the Payment of performance-based incentives for the University of Education as of December 9, 2014 and the Deliberation Committee on the Payment of performance-based performance-based incentives for the University of Education as of December 9, 2014 pursuant to the Guidelines for the Operation of the performance-based annual salary system for faculty members of the ordinary university (hereinafter “Guidelines for the Operation of the performance-based annual salary system for teachers of the ordinary university”). The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s research performance was omitted in the calculation of performance-based incentives for the year 201

C. Accordingly, on December 12, 2014, the Defendant held a meeting of the deliberative committee for the payment of performance-based performance-based incentives (the second meeting) and notified the Plaintiff on December 15, 2014 that the instant deliberative committee decided to the effect that “The part of the performance-based annual salary management guidelines for the performance-based annual salary system for the colleges of education (hereinafter “colleges of education”) did not recognize the achievements of the research expenses for industry-academic cooperation, and it is difficult to recognize the achievements that do not have any guidelines at present, since it did not recognize the achievements of the research expenses for industry-academic cooperation,” and that the Plaintiff was determined as the performance-based performance-based incentives for the year 2014 as KRW 2,416,00 (the fourth, B, and 511.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed an appeal petition to revoke the instant disposition with the Appeal Commission against the instant disposition. However, on March 11, 2015, the Appeal Commission for Teachers dismissed the said petition on the ground that “this case’s disposition is determined by lawful procedures and cannot be deemed unlawful, and it cannot be deemed that it is a disposition disadvantageous to the personal thought of a teacher, which is subject to the appeal review under the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status.”

E. On the other hand, this is true.