1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, thereby citing this case in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) during the process of the instant disposition of rejection of reappointment, the Plaintiff applied a fair review based on reasonable criteria, taking into account the Intervenor’s unique nature. The instant decision is in violation of Article 53-2 of the Private School Act, and is inconsistent with the Defendant’s prior decision, and the Intervenor’s research misconduct (e.g., the Intervenor’s research misconduct) should be considered in the examination of reappointment against the Intervenor. The said research misconduct violates the obligation to maintain good faith and dignity under the State Public Officials Act, and the grounds for refusal of reappointment against the Intervenor are sufficient (as the result of the low evaluation of the Intervenor’s low achievements), and thus, the instant disposition of review of reappointment is substantially lawful.

B. In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier as to the assertion that the sufficient relaxed standard of review was applied to the Intervenor, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted earlier, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have rejected the Intervenor’s reappointment through a fair review based on reasonable standards, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the decision of this case on such premise is lawful, and the decision of this case is not deemed to infringe on the autonomy of university by excessively restricting the Plaintiff’s personnel rights related to the reappointment of teachers.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① The Plaintiff’s research performance of the instant thesis, etc. presented by the Intervenor at a time other than the actual service period of the Intervenor.