1. On April 6, 2016, the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of a disposition rejecting the reappointment between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor (2016-40).

1. Details of decision;

A. On March 1, 2013, the Plaintiff was a school foundation with the aim of maintaining and managing the C University, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was appointed as a faculty member in exclusive charge of the management of the C University.

B. On November 13, 2015, the C University Re-employment Evaluation Committee assessed the Intervenor’s reappointment on November 13, 2015, and assessed the Intervenor’s performance rating as falling short of the criteria for the evaluation of reappointment.

C. On December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff’s teachers’ personnel committee deliberated on whether to be reappointed to the Intervenor, and decided to be dismissed from reappointment.

Plaintiff

On December 29, 2015, according to the deliberation of the above committee, the chief director notified the intervenors of the grounds for dismissal (hereinafter “instant notice of dismissal”) to “the expiration of the term of appointment (one year), the date of dismissal: February 29, 2016 due to the decline of reappointment by the university (agency) to which the intervenors belong due to the lack of standards for evaluating the re-employment of the university (agency).”

마. 참가인은 2016. 1. 18. 피고에 2016-40호로 이 사건 재임용거부처분의 취소를 구하는 소청심사를 청구하였고, 피고는 2016. 4. 6. ‘재임용평가위원회의 평가표는 점수산정의 근거가 명시되어 있지 않아 참가인의 방어권이 침해되었으므로, 이 사건 면직통보는 구 사립학교법(2016. 2. 3. 법률 제13936호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 사립학교법’이라 한다) 제53조의2 제6항에 위반되어 위법하다. 또한 재임용평가위원회의 근무평정 항목으로 ㉠ 교수자질 및 품위유지, ㉡ 교육역량, ㉢ 계약사항 및 관련규정 준수, ㉣ 학생지도 능력과 실적, ㉤ 근무태도, ㉥ 대학발전 기여가 있는데 이는 평가자의 주관이나 자의가 개입될 소지가 커서 객관적이고 합리적인 심사기준이라고 볼 수 없으므로, 이 사건 면직통보는 구 사립학교법 제53조의2 제7항에 위반되어 위법하다.’는 이유로 참가인의 청구를 인용하는...