1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

8.On the 11th page, the following shall be added:

Article 53-2 (7) of the former Private School Act provides that deliberation on whether the term of appointment expires for the faculty members of private universities shall be based on the objective reasons prescribed by the school regulations of private universities and colleges, such as matters on student education, academic research, evaluation of matters on student guidance, etc. In light of the fact that there are no provisions on the detailed methods of evaluation and delegation to the school regulations of private universities and colleges. In order to establish the school regulations and the standards for deliberation on the concrete methods of reappointment, the appointing authority has considerable discretion on the establishment of detailed evaluation items, allocation of points, evaluation methods, etc. unless it goes beyond the scope delegated by Article 53-2 (7) of the Private School Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du6056, Sept. 10, 2009). Article 57-2(7) of the Private School Act provides that “A person who does not engage in the last 9th 9th 10th 200” does not include an evaluation of the matters concerning student education, academic research, and student guidance as stipulated in Article 57-2(7) of the Private School Act, and also includes necessary matters for the examination of the qualifications and capabilities of the Plaintiff’s university teachers, which reflects the characteristics as a junior college of this case as an evaluation element, such as the ability and performance of industry-academic cooperation cooperation, and the degree of improvement of industrial cooperation projects.” As such, it appears that the following contents are added to “a person in charge of an appraiser and its own evaluation criteria,” and the following contents are more detailed and consistent evaluation criteria than the evaluation regulation of this case.