1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The facts below the basis of the facts do not conflict between the Parties.

The defendant is a school juristic person operating the C University.

B. On March 25, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant to serve as a full-time lecturer at C University Social Welfare Department from March 25, 2011 to August 31, 2013.

C. On May 1, 2013, the Defendant revoked the appointment of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not supplement his research business achievements within one year after being newly appointed.

2. Determination on the claim to nullify the revocation of the appointment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is a private school teacher, and the Defendant cannot revoke an appointment contract unless there exist any grounds for disqualification prescribed by the Public Educational Officials Act. Moreover, since the employment contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was not attached to the condition that “the Plaintiff must supplement the research achievement within one year after appointment,” the cancellation of appointment contract is not effective on the ground that the Plaintiff did not supplement the research achievement. Even if the above conditions were attached to the employment contract, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he would supplement the research performance by September 2, 2013, the appointment contract was canceled before the expiration of the period. This is invalid. (2) At the time of the Defendant’s appointment contract entered into with the Plaintiff, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would supplement the insufficient research achievement within one year after appointment, and that the appointment contract was revoked, and that the Plaintiff also concluded the appointment contract with a well-known knowledge of this.

Therefore, the cancellation of the appointment contract made by the defendant is valid on the ground that the plaintiff did not supplement the research business within the deadline.

B. The nature of the contract for appointment of the teacher of private school 1 is a private employment contract, and if there is a reason to cancel the declaration of intention of the parties to the contract, that reason is that.