1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the parts mentioned in paragraph (2) below and addition of the judgment mentioned in paragraph (3). Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On January 18, 2016, the second sentence Nos. 14 and 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “amended as of January 18, 2016”) was followed by “amended as of January 18, 2016.”

B. On the 4th sentence of the first instance judgment, the plaintiff in the 9th sentence " shall have the right to file an application" through the 12th sentence shall be followed as follows:

【Notification of this case is a procedural error, such as without undergoing a fair review based on reasonable standards, and the defendant's own expression of public opinion violates the principle of trust against his own expression of opinion, as well as a arbitrary disposition that has considerably lost validity and objectivity under social norms, and is unlawful since it abused discretion in violation of the principle of proportionality.】

C. On the 5th page of the first instance judgment, the 5th page “Plaintiff” from “13.”

I would like to say.

"To this end, the following shall apply:

Since the Plaintiff is a teacher appointed with a fixed term of working period, etc. pursuant to Article 11-4 of the Public Educational Officials Act, he/she cannot have the expectation that he/she will continue to be reappointed in accordance with the teacher

In light of the fact that the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered it difficult to view the result of an examination by a faculty member exclusively in charge of lectures as a special circumstance, unlike the case of a university faculty member in the case of a request for requesting disclosure of information filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, the Plaintiff was performing the duties of a faculty member under Article 15(2) of the Higher Education Act, and the personnel regulations of another national university exclusively in charge of lectures do not limit the frequency of reappointment by a faculty member exclusively in charge of lectures. As such, the Plaintiff’s position as the professor exclusively in charge of lectures constitutes a faculty member