1. The Defendant’s refusal to recommend the appointment of the president of B University on September 29, 2014 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the professor of the Agricultural Department at B University (hereinafter “instant University”).

B. Pursuant to Article 24 of the Public Educational Officials Act, Articles 12-2 and 12-3 of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials, the pertinent university provides for necessary matters concerning the selection, recommendation, etc. of candidates for the president appointment of the University of this case.

Pursuant to the above provisions, the university of this case decided the plaintiff who received the highest number of votes at the president candidate recommendation committee through the composition of the committee for the selection of candidates for president appointment, the recruitment of candidates for president, policy debates, etc. as the first president candidate, and C who obtained the highest number of votes following the plaintiff as the second president candidate.

C. The instant university recommended the Plaintiff to the Defendant as the first president candidate, and C as the second president candidate.

However, on September 29, 2014, the Defendant sent to the instant university a document stating that “the Plaintiff and C were inappropriate to be the president of the instant university and thus not requested for appointment.” The instant university sent a document stating the purport that “the appointment of the president and recommended by re-electing the candidates for appointment of president within a prompt time pursuant to relevant provisions, such as the Public Educational Officials Act.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant request”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. Pursuant to Article 24(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act, the university of this case only has the right to recommend a president candidate, and whether to recommend a president candidate is unique to the defendant, and thus there is no right to request the defendant to make a proposal. The request of this case is merely an internal decision-making process between the defendant who is an administrative agency and the university of this case, and does not fall

Also, the university of this case is recommended by the university of this case.