1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims added by this court are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

1. The grounds for this part of the underlying facts are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (the second “basic facts”) except for the dismissal as follows. Thus, this part of the underlying facts is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] The decision of refusal to dismiss a new appointment" in 14th 3th 14th 14th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be considered as "decision of refusal to re-election".

The 6th of the first instance judgment "......" was "(hereinafter referred to as "the second re-examination")" and "the second re-examination conducted in 2013......"

The following shall be added to 7 pages of the judgment of the first instance.

A person shall be appointed.

F. After a decision to refuse reappointment as of January 9, 2015, the Defendant’s board of directors held a temporary directors’ meeting on January 8, 2015 and decided not to re-appoint the Plaintiff. On January 9, 2015, the president of the Duniversity notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was dismissed from reappointment due to three reasons (i.e., work performance rating standards, “unjustifiable financing at the time of new appointment”, “no effort to improve disagreements,” and “no effort to improve disagreements” (hereinafter the above notification of the withdrawal from reappointment as of January 9, 2015).

) The 7th page 4 of the first instance judgment of "A" is added to "A evidence 69".

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant did not satisfy the procedural requirements such as notifying the Plaintiff of the grounds for refusal of reappointment in making a decision to refuse reappointment. Since the work performance rating for the Plaintiff is subjective and arbitrary, it is unlawful. Thus, the first decision to refuse reappointment is null and void as it deviates from and abused discretion, and this constitutes tort as it loses objective legitimacy.

B. On November 29, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a review of the first decision to refuse reappointment with the Special Committee on Appeal against Teachers on the Appeal against Teachers on November 29, 2005, thereby confirming the Plaintiff’s intention to file an application for review of reappointment. After confirmation of nullity of the first decision to refuse reappointment, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are