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.

1. Details of the decision;

A. On September 1, 1995, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as the associate professor at the college of literature and religion, which was operated by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) and was appointed as an associate professor at the college ofology and religion, and on September 1, 1999.

B. The Plaintiff submitted a written resignation on February 22, 2004 and was dismissed from office on February 29, 2004, but on March 25, 2004, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development requested a review to seek revocation on the ground that the said disposition was not effective against the Plaintiff’s will. The said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on May 31, 2004.

Accordingly, on February 6, 2006, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with this court seeking the revocation of the decision to dismiss the above committee's request for retrial. On February 22, 2005, the court rendered a judgment revoking the decision to dismiss the committee's request for retrial on the ground that the above disposition to dismiss the committee's request for retrial was illegal due to the plaintiff's submission of resignation without the plaintiff's consent (2004Guhap24936), and this judgment became final and conclusive on February 8, 2007.

C. The above B.

The duration of appointment of the Plaintiff’s associate professor (from September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2006) has expired during the litigation procedure described in paragraph (1). On April 17, 2007, the intervenor appointed the Plaintiff as an associate professor at a new school from March 1, 2007 to an associate professor at a new school (special employment period: from March 1, 2007 to August 31, 2007). On June 21, 2007, the intervenor followed the procedures for the examination of reappointment of the Plaintiff. The intervenor rendered a disposition of refusal to re-appoint the Plaintiff as of August 31, 2007 (hereinafter “previous refusal disposition”).

Accordingly, on July 20, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Defendant seeking revocation of the previous disposition rejecting reappointment. On September 19, 2007, the Defendant rendered a decision revoking the previous disposition rejecting reappointment on the ground of procedural defects, and the Intervenor thereafter.