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.

The court's explanation about this case is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part concerning which appeal is made under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if all evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the first instance court’s decision rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable). Of the grounds for the first instance judgment, the first instance court’s decision on the dismissal of the Plaintiff

B. Paragraph 4 of the part of the first instance judgment (section 5, No. 4, and No. 9) was revised as follows. 4) In the course of examining the appeal against the rejection of the first reappointment to the Plaintiff, the Intervenor requested additional materials necessary for deliberation on reappointment along with the submission of explanatory materials regarding research misconduct related to the instant lower judgment and sexual manipulation related to the Intervenor’s welfare department at the time, which was at issue to the Plaintiff on January 24, 2017. Accordingly, the Intervenor submitted a written request for the opportunity to state opinions and a written vindication on February 6, 2017. On February 13, 2017, the Intervenor’s teachers personnel committee deliberated on the Plaintiff’s opinion and vindication, etc. present on February 13, 2017, and rejected the appointment of the Plaintiff’s meeting on the grounds that the Plaintiff rejected the appointment of the Plaintiff’s opinion and vindication, and the Intervenor rejected the appointment of the Plaintiff’s research personnel agreement No. 27, Mar. 13, 2017.

. The grounds for refusal to re-appoint this part are recognized," of the first instance judgment Nos. 10, 5 and 6, respectively, are as follows: