The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected all the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s refusal to renew the appointment contract of this case is unlawful on account of procedural and substantive defects, and that this constitutes a tort caused by the Defendant’s intentional negligence.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the Defendant’s provision of personnel management of teachers and abuse of discretionary power, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely recognizing facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.