1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a person appointed as an assistant professor of the department D of C University from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2015. The Plaintiff is a school juristic person that establishes and operates C University.

B. On April 22, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a note requesting the Intervenor to submit data following the re-election / re-contract / promotion of two semesters 2015, and entered the entry and submission period from May 4, 2015 to May 8, 2015 (gold) 17:00.

On May 2, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Intervenor a summary stating that the Plaintiff shall submit the written objection and supporting documents from May 26, 2015 to June 17, 2015, along with a comprehensive evaluation statement for each individual subject to re-election/recontract/Promotion of 2015, along with a two-semester / re-contract / a comprehensive evaluation statement for each individual subject to promotion. In the event of an objection, the Plaintiff presented the written objection and supporting documents.

C. On June 1, 2015, the Intervenor filed an objection, and submitted to the Plaintiff a certificate of scheduled publication of the thesis published on May 29, 2015, attesting that the Plaintiff would pass the examination process to “C Research E (F Publication)” and publish the G (hereinafter “Additional Submission E”).

On June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that “a “certificate of scheduled publication of the thesis” additionally submitted on June 1, 2015 by the Intervenor is not a research performance, and thus, should be deemed non-recognition” during the period subject to evaluation, and notified the Intervenor of his/her attendance in the Teachers’ Personnel Committee to state his/her opinion or submit his/her opinion in writing.

E. On June 29, 2015, the president of the Plaintiff’s school notified the Intervenor of the refusal of reappointment on the ground that the Intervenor’s total research point was less than 133.3 points, which is the lowest point of the research field required for the Intervenor to be reappointed, was less than 160 points of the research field required for the Intervenor to be reappointed, and thus falls short of the research field of the faculty evaluation (hereinafter “instant notification of refusal of reappointment”).

F. The intervenor is the defendant.