1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The appointment of the Intervenor, the ex officio dismissal, and the revocation of the appointment of the Plaintiff is an educational foundation that establishes and operates the D University (hereinafter “instant University”) in Taecheon-si, Taecheon-si, and the Intervenor joining the Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was newly appointed as the above university’s computer information and full-time lecturer on September 1, 199, and was promoted as an assistant professor on October 1, 2003.

On February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff’s ex officio dismissal against the Intervenor on the ground of the closure of the computer information division, but the Defendant determined that the ex officio dismissal on June 18, 2007 was null and void.

Accordingly, although the intervenor was reinstated, the plaintiff was dismissed on October 1, 2007 by the second ex officio dismissal on October 1, 2007 and the third ex officio dismissal on May 1, 2008.

However, the second ex officio dismissal is confirmed to be invalid by the defendant, and the third ex officio dismissal was revoked by the court on the grounds of abuse of discretion by the court.

The Intervenor, including the rejection of reappointment, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of wages on the grounds of invalidation of the aforementioned ex officio dismissal disposition. On February 29, 2008, the end of the term of appointment, which was 4 years from October 1, 2003, and September 30, 2007, the date of appointment, the Plaintiff filed an application for review of re-employment with the Plaintiff several times from September 2013 to September 2013 (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da69101).

On December 4, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) notified the Intervenor of an application for a provisional disposition for the review of reappointment and an application for indirect compulsory performance based on such decision; (b) followed the review procedure, and (c) rendered a disposition of refusal of reappointment on April 30, 2015 on the ground that the Intervenor did not meet the standard points for two items among three items in the field of teaching profession evaluation; and (c) failed to meet the standard point of 62 points with the total point of 53 points.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal of reappointment”) An intervenor.