1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment as to the plaintiff's assertion of the first instance, since it is identical to the entry in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, in addition to adding a judgment as to the plaintiff's assertion of the first instance, it shall be cited as "for the defendant", "the plaintiff" as "for the intervenor", and "for the intervenor" as "for the intervenor", the 7 to 12th day below the 11th day, and the 12th day below to 5th day below the

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the Plaintiff’s argument is favorable to the Intervenor as to the part of Article 28(3) of the Regulations on the Appointment of Faculty Members of the instant school, which is based on the disposition of rejection of reappointment, and Article 29 subparag. 4 of the Regulations on the Appointment of Teaching Staff of the instant school, and Article 7 of the Regulations on the Restructuring of the Department (hereinafter “Rules of the instant Regulations”) is amended to give the Intervenor an opportunity to be reappointed by filing an application for major transition to a faculty member who may be discharged from office as a faculty member, and thus, even if the Intervenor failed to predict the amendment of the Regulations of the instant case in advance, it cannot be deemed that the Intervenor’s refusal of reappointment cannot be deemed as an unlawful act of evading the Intervenor’s legitimate right to apply for review of reappointment.

However, in full view of the following circumstances admitted by the aforementioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier, the provision of the school regulations of this case was amended immediately before the commencement of the examination for reappointment to apply the grounds for exclusion from reappointment to the Intervenor in the absence of the Intervenor only at the time. It cannot be said that objective and predicted provisions are not applicable.