1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. Facts that there is no dispute over the details of disposition (based on recognition), Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 7-1 through 4, Gap evidence 8-2, and the results of fact inquiry into Eul University in the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff is a professor of B University, a national university (hereinafter “instant university”).

B. Pursuant to the “Rules on the Selection of Candidates for Appointment of President of B University” (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2215, Feb. 23, 2018), the University of this case decided that the Plaintiff, who obtained the highest number of 29 votes as a result of the voting of the 18th president candidate recommendation committee following the composition of the committee for the selection of candidates for appointment of president and the recruitment and publication of president candidates, was the first president candidate, and C, who obtained the highest number of votes as the Plaintiff, as the second president candidate, and recommended the Defendant as the first president candidate, and C, as the second president candidate, on November 3, 2014.

C. On December 15, 2014, the Defendant sent to the instant university a letter of official stating that “The Defendant would not recommend a president candidate recommended by the instant university following deliberation by the Committee for Personnel of Public Educational Officials pursuant to Article 24(6) of the Public Educational Officials Act.” The Defendant sent a letter of official nomination stating that the instant university re-elects and recommends the president candidate within a prompt time under the relevant provisions, such as the Public Educational Officials Act.”

(hereinafter “Refusal of proposal for appointment of this case”). 2. Refusal of proposal for appointment of this case

A. An act of not recommending or recommending the appointment of the Defendant’s main main port of safety is merely an internal decision-making process among administrative agencies, and the rejection of the recommendation for appointment of this case is merely a notification or concept that the university of this case does not recommend a person recommended as president candidate, and thus does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

In addition, this shall not apply.