1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. Even if the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court as cited in the judgment of the first instance was reviewed together with the evidence submitted in the first instance court, the plaintiff's failure to meet the educational achievement and thus, the decision of this case that the rejection disposition of this case was lawful is justified. Thus, the decision of the first instance court that rejected the plaintiff's assertion is just.

In spite of an order to prepare for party members after appeal, the Plaintiff re-appointed an attorney-at-law who was an attorney at the first instance court as the legal representative at the first instance court, and applied for the change of the date for pleading through the legal representative at the first instance court, and did not state specific grounds for appeal. The Plaintiff submitted the statement of grounds for appeal because the allegations in the grounds for appeal are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, it seems that it is not necessary to resume the pleading and further review the pleading, and it is also deemed that the deadline is in accordance with Article 149 of the Civil Procedure Act applicable mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts written by the court, and thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] On the two pages of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff’s research business entity did not meet the minimum requirements” as follows: “The Plaintiff’s research business entity did not meet the minimum requirements.”

The first instance judgment of the first instance court’s third four pages is the president, and thus, the president of the instant university is the president of the Intervenor, and thus, the president of the instant university refuses the first instance of the instant case.”

From the five pages of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant’s “Rules on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff” in the first instance is regarded as the “Rules on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff of the University.”

From the 7th judgment below.