1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including costs incurred by participation in the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following 2. paragraphs to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and is the same as the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Details of the judgment added;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that clinical pathology is emphasized in the trial of a political party is an academic field that directly examines whether viruses and microorganisms exist in relation to human health and, in light of the fact that the subject of the Plaintiff’s major is different from the microbiological and the subject of biological resource use, the subject of the clinical pathology examination, which is a national examination, is likely to damage students, and there was no possibility of converting the Intervenor into and placing the Intervenor to the clinical pathology of the C University. 2) The department of complete plant protection of D University, which was established in the year 2013, has already been recruited before the dismissal of the Intervenor. Considering the fact that the detailed subjects of the said department are inconsistent with the Intervenor’s detailed major subject of biological resource use, and that the number of new students is small, there was no possibility of converting the Intervenor into the complete assignment of the D University to the complete assignment of plants.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by taking account of the facts admitted by the first instance court and the overall purport of the evidence and arguments as to the possibility of conversion into and placement to the clinical pathology of the 1 C University, the Plaintiff was likely to avoid dismissal by transferring the Intervenor to the clinical pathology of the C University.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(1) The intervenor's major or academic activities desire conversion and placement.