1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance as to the instant case are stated are as follows: (a) the “Special Act on Remedy” of No. 15, the 6th sentence of the first instance judgment, as “Special Act on the Relief of Persons Disqualified from Appointment of University Faculty Members”; and (b) February 28, 2016, as “ February 29, 2016,” respectively, as “Special Act on the Relief of Persons Disqualified from Appointment of University Faculty Members”; (c) February 7, 2016, as “the first instance judgment,” and (d) the Defendant’s assertion emphasized in the trial is identical to the reasons of the first instance judgment, except for adding “the second additional judgment”

2. Additional determination

A. Defendant’s assertion ① Article 53-2(4) of the Private School Act provides that “The appointment authority shall notify the pertinent teacher of the fact that the term of appointment expires four months prior to the expiration date of the term of appointment of the faculty members subject to reappointment and that he/she may apply for deliberation on their reappointment.” The term “not later than four months prior to the expiration date of the term of appointment” refers to the term of the appointment authority to notify the relevant faculty members subject to reappointment, and there is no provision on the date of such notification

However, the Defendant notified the Defendant of May 28, 2015, which was from February 29, 2016 to April 29, 2016, the expiration date of the Plaintiff’s term of appointment, to apply for reappointment, as well as the research achievement of the Plaintiff’s research performance from February 29, 2016 to February 29, 2016 in the process of examining the appointment of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant’s notification of the application for reappointment to the

② The Plaintiff’s research performance by February 29, 2016 is three cases. The Plaintiff’s research performance falls short of the research performance, such as plagiarism of a considerable amount of “G” as a doctor’s degree thesis.

Therefore, it is justifiable that the defendant refused to be reappointed to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 23 subparagraph 1 of the Teachers Personnel Management Regulations.

③ The advertisement production department, which the Plaintiff had belonged, was absorbed with the broadcast image media, and the broadcast media department still in existence, was majored by the Plaintiff as a practical-centered department.