1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Circumstances for the review and decision of this case;

A. (1) On May 27, 1991, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer and electronic accounting at B University and a full-time lecturer. On April 1, 1996, the Plaintiff was promoted as an assistant professor. (2) A school juristic person C (hereinafter “C”) which is a school juristic person that establishes and operates B University (hereinafter “C”) commenced procedures for review of reappointment with the Plaintiff around August 1999.

At the time of the examination for reappointment, Article 28 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Faculty Members of B University provides that ① Research performance falls short of the standards and ② Work performance evaluation of teaching staff falls short of the standards (in excess of 30 points) shall be excluded.

Among them, the detailed details of the evaluation field, items, grades, scores, etc. of the teacher's performance rating are as follows 3) C of the results of the examination for reappointment of the Plaintiff, which satisfies the research performance criteria set out in the criteria for examination for reappointment, but C of the Plaintiff's research performance rating on the ground that the total number of the teacher's performance rating is merely 22 points as indicated in the lower part of the “school teacher's performance rating table” (hereinafter referred to as the “decision on refusal of reappointment”).

The plaintiff, among the 4th 2th 3th 2th 1th 3th 2th 3th 2th 1th 3th 2th 3th 2th 3th 3th 2th 2th 1th 3th 3th 3th 2th 2th 1th 3th 3th 3th 2th 2th 1th 3th 3th 2th 2th 1th 3th 2th 3th 2th 2th 1th 3th 3th 2th 2th 1th 3th 2th 2th 1th 3th 2th 2th 1th 3th 3th 2th 1st 2th 1th 2th 1th 3th 2th 2th 1th 3th 2th 1th 3th 20th 1th 206th 126th 206th 1th 206th 1th 26th 3th 20.