1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. An intervenor establishes and operates Cuniversity as a corporation established on December 24, 1986 with the aim of providing university education based on the educational ideology of the Republic of Korea. On April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff is a person who was newly appointed as Cuniversity as a major professor for industry-academic cooperation and served as an assistant professor.

B. The Plaintiff’s term of office was from April 1, 2014 to February 29, 2016, and the Intervenor rendered a disposition of refusal to re-appoint the Plaintiff on December 14, 2015 on the grounds that the service evaluation scores fall short of the service evaluation scores.

(2) On March 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Defendant for review of the appeal under Article 2016-54 against the rejection disposition prior to re-election, and on March 9, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the rejection disposition prior to re-election on the ground that “the procedural defect for which the Intervenor did not specify the grounds for rejection and give the Plaintiff an opportunity to provide a substantive explanation

(hereinafter referred to as “decision 1”). (c)

The Intervenor newly proceeded with the procedure for review of reappointment of the Plaintiff in accordance with the purport of the first decision (hereinafter “Review of Reappointment”), and at the time, the Plaintiff’s service evaluation score was 13.17.

However, the rules on the appointment of the main professor for industry-academic cooperation (hereinafter “instant appointment rules”) stipulate that “If the total amount of the occupational evaluation points exceeds 360/2 and at least 160/2 years from the work evaluation, it may be determined and reappointed as eligible (Article 16(1)).”

Accordingly, on August 30, 2016, the intervenor issued a disposition rejecting re-election on the ground that the plaintiff's service evaluation scores fall short of the standard points.

(hereinafter “instant refusal disposition of re-election”) D.

On September 27, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Defendant under Article 2016-656 against the instant disposition of refusal to re-election, and the Defendant filed an appeal with the Defendant on November 23, 2016, which applied to the Intervenor’s review of re-employment.