beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims modified by this court, shall be modified as follows:
Defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Status 1) The Defendant is C University (hereinafter “C University”)
2) The Plaintiff was reappointed as a full-time lecturer on March 1, 200 as a member of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as “China”), and was reappointed as a full-time lecturer every one year from February 28, 2010. On March 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was reappointed as an E and an assistant professor every year from November 30, 2012 after being promoted as E and an assistant professor, and was reappointed as a full-time teacher (E and assistant professor) on December 1, 2015 until February 28, 2017.
B. Around October 11, 2016, C Co. notified the Plaintiff of the decision to refuse re-election. Accordingly, the Plaintiff applied for deliberation on re-election to C. 2) The teachers’ personnel committee of C, from November 7, 2016 to November 17, 2016, was assessed against the Plaintiff.
3) On December 13, 2016, the president of CJ received the results of the evaluation of reappointment from 70 points 61.9 points to the Plaintiff, and less than the standard points 70 points 61.9 points , among absolute requirements, the Plaintiff is expected not to be reappointed due to lack of the number of times of liability (12.0 hours out of 33 cc.). Accordingly, the Plaintiff submitted a written request for review or notified the teachers’ personnel committee to attend a meeting and state his/her opinion. (4) As such, the Plaintiff submitted a written request for review and explained on December 28, 2016 that the results of the examination for reappointment are unreasonable, but the teachers’ personnel committee decided to recommend the Plaintiff to refuse to be reappointed on the grounds that the number of days of the examination falls short
5) On January 6, 2017, the Defendant holds a board of directors meeting on January 6, 2017 to examine the appointment of the former teachers in the year 2017 as to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “examination for reappointment”).
(2) If the assessment results show that the assessment results do not meet the standard points (64.9 points out of the 70 passing criteria) and the absolute requirements, it shall be responsible for the failure to meet the responsibility.