1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The cost of review shall include the part resulting from the intervention.

1. The following facts are significant in this court:

On March 1, 1999, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer at C University established and operated by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) and was promoted to the assistant professor on April 1, 2001.

B. On February 28, 2007, the intervenor notified the plaintiff of the disposition of dismissal on the ground that the department (D at the time) to which the plaintiff belongs was abolished, and the plaintiff filed a request for review of the appeal seeking revocation of the disposition of dismissal, and the defendant made a decision to revoke the disposition of dismissal against the plaintiff on June 18, 2007.

Although the intervenor filed an administrative litigation against the defendant's decision and filed an administrative litigation, on June 12, 2008, against the judgment (Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap33962), the intervenor appealedd by Seoul High Court 2008Nu18702, but was sentenced to the dismissal of the appeal on April 22, 2009. The intervenor appealed by Supreme Court 2009Du7677, but was sentenced to the dismissal of the appeal on July 23, 2009.

(hereinafter referred to as “previous Litigation”). (c)

On April 1, 2010, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the approval of the recovery of the former teacher’s status (re-delivery) from March 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010. On June 28, 2010, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the result of deliberation on refusal of reappointment.

(hereinafter “instant disposition rejecting reappointment”) D.

On July 6, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition rejecting reappointment. On September 6, 2010, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “the Intervenor’s examination, evaluation, and teaching evaluation with respect to the Plaintiff was fairly assessed on the basis of objective grounds” (hereinafter “instant decision”).

E. The Plaintiff did not properly provide the Plaintiff with the opportunity to give notice and state his opinion against the Defendant as Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap46326, and there is a procedural defect that the Intervenor’s review committee was inappropriate.