1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The appeal cost (including the part resulting from the supplementary participation) shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted by the court of first instance (Evidence No. 29 (Article 29)) is delivered to the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the case where the plaintiff is dismissed or added as follows, and the judgment on the newly made argument at the trial is added to Paragraph 2, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

From the second bottom of the judgment of the first instance, the phrase “ September 3, 2018.” of the first instance judgment as “ September 4, 2018.”

The first instance court's 10th to 13th of the first instance court's 11th of the 10th instance judgment are as follows.

The examination and evaluation of the basic capacity of the university in 2018 is an evaluation of the performance for the year from 2015 to 2017. As a result of the said evaluation, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s designation as a university subject to the restriction on financial support was a result of the failure to prepare a second-stage self-examination report due to the Intervenor’s failure to perform his/her duties (it does not seem that there is any circumstance to deem that the self-examination report was poorly prepared even if the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duties, and if the sum of the first and second-stage evaluation scores is less than 80 points, it is selected as a university subject to the restriction on financial support.

【】

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the plaintiff did not have grounds for mitigation of disciplinary action against the intervenor, and that the plaintiff's dismissal disposition of this case is lawful in accordance with the disciplinary action standards, since the plaintiff did not have sufficient grounds for mitigation of

The detailed criteria for disciplinary action are not prepared in the personnel management regulations and articles of incorporation.

However, the Gu is the standard for public educational officials engaged in the same duties.