1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was appointed for a three-year period from March 1, 2009 to February 28, 201 as D University’s golf science department and golf science major faculty ( associate professor) located in Chungcheongbuk- C, which the Defendant established and operated.

B. On February 2012, the Plaintiff was reappointed from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2014 after a research evaluation of the reappointment of teachers’ personnel committee.

In relation to the review of reappointment of plaintiffs, the following matters are included in the minutes of the teachers' personnel committee:

The golf science and A professor (the third year, the senior professor) who are classified as a person with no achievements among the applicants for retirement age participation show that the research achievement submitted and recognized by the principal's research achievement falls under the category above SCI level, the members show that the research achievement submitted and recognized by the principal falls under the category above SCI level, the members show that they are sufficiently examined and familiarly determined as equivalent to the thesis of his/her academic degree, and all consent to the reappointment of the A professor.

(c).

On May 31, 2013, the D University made an objection to the review for reappointment of the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would review the Plaintiff’s research business entity “E” submitted at the time of the review for reappointment, and that the Plaintiff would be composed of five examiners who recommended the Plaintiff, five examiners who recommended the president of the D University, five examiners who recommended the president of the D University, and 15 examiners who recommended the president of the D University. Accordingly, the first examiner (the recommendation of the Plaintiff) demanded to recommend 15 examiners (the recommendation of the Plaintiff) equivalent to three times as the first examiner.

The Plaintiff did not comply with the recommendation proposal of the review committee members of the D University, and the D University commissioned five external review members on August 2013, and decided that the Plaintiff’s research results submitted at the time of review for reappointment in 2012 were merely an international sCI thesis, contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the research results of the Plaintiff submitted at the time of review for reappointment in 2012 are international sCI thesis.

Accordingly, the D University shall submit a statement of reasons to the review committee members who reviewed reappointment.