1. On April 29, 2013, the Defendant applied for revocation of revocation of reappointment between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

Details of the disposition

The defendant and the plaintiff enter into a contract for the appointment of teachers as follows:

Article 1 (Assignment and Position) The Plaintiff shall appoint the Intervenor as an assistant professor of the Department of Computer Engineering (department) of the University of Law of the National University and the Department of Computer Engineering (department).

Article 2 (Period of Appointment) The appointment period of the Intervenor shall be from April 1, 201 to February 28, 2013.

Article 6 (Terms and Conditions of Recontract and Procedures) Where there is no separate notice by the expiration date of the contract term, the contract shall be automatically terminated and dismissed.

In such cases, no separate notice shall be given on the termination or dismissal of the contract.

On March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff provided a full explanation of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff and the Regulations on the Evaluation of Teaching Status (Appointment, Promotion, and Determination of Annual Salaries, etc.).

On March 1, 2005, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer in the computer engineering department at B University established and operated by the Plaintiff, and on June 30, 201, the term of appointment was from April 1, 201 to February 28, 2013, and served as an assistant professor in the computer engineering department.

The main contents of the above teachers appointment contract are as follows:

On November 19, 2012, the Plaintiff received an application for reappointment from the Intervenor on November 19, 2012 due to the Intervenor’s expiration of the term of appointment as assistant professor. On December 21, 2012, the Plaintiff held a teachers’ personnel committee of B University on December 21, 2012 to deliberate on the Intervenor’s reappointment. As a result, the Plaintiff decided not to request the Plaintiff’s reappointment to the Plaintiff’s board of directors in accordance with the Rules on the Personnel Management of Faculty of B

On December 24, 2012, the president of B University (hereinafter referred to as the “president”) notified the intervenors of “less the average of 4.0 percent during the term of appointment (two years)” among the requirements for re-election, he/she requested the teachers’ personnel committee to present himself/herself to state his/her opinion or present his/her opinion in writing.

On December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff holds a teachers' personnel committee and is as follows to the intervenors.