logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.08.27 2015구합105
교수재임용거부처분취소
Text

1. On November 5, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim to revoke the revocation of the revocation of reappointment between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is an incorporated educational foundation that establishes and operates the Sinman University (hereinafter referred to as “Gunman University”). The Plaintiff is an associate professor of the Sinman University on August 18, 2008 (contract period: from August 15, 2008 to August 31, 2014), who was appointed as a professor.

According to Article 39-3 of the Intervenor’s Articles of Incorporation, the Chairperson shall evaluate the achievements of full-time teachers and determine whether to be reappointed by reflecting the results. According to Article 14(1) of the Regulations on the Evaluation of Faculty Members of Gyeonggi-do, which was revised and implemented on December 5, 2011, the evaluation score necessary for the motion for reappointment shall be at least 65 points. Article 14(2) of the same Act provides that the evaluation score necessary for the motion for reappointment shall be at least 65 points. Although Article 14(2) of the same Act provides that the evaluation score necessary for the motion for reappointment in the educational field shall be at least 0 (if the number of the evaluation points is less than 65 points, less than 0 points), the Plaintiff’s evaluation score is at least 60 points necessary for the motion for reappointment, and the Plaintiff’s evaluation score is merely less than 65 points that are below the average evaluation point of 60.75 points in the education field, the Plaintiff’s evaluation score in the research field is below 180 points.

On April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted an application for the reappointment of professors to the intervenors (hereinafter collectively referred to as “examination for reappointment”), and on July 31, 2014, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of approval for reappointment on the following grounds.

arrow