1.The judgment of the first instance, including a claim modified and expanded in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's ground for appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a school juristic person operating the Dongnam University. The plaintiff is a person who is appointed as the Boman University Department C and an assistant professor for two years from March 1, 2001 to February 28, 2003.

B. On December 26, 2002, among 14 registered members registered prior to the expiration of the Plaintiff’s term of appointment, the Defendant’s teachers’ personnel committee reviewed whether to renew the contract by taking into account the following factors: (a) the 14 members registered prior to the expiration of the Plaintiff’s term of appointment: (b) the 14 members registered prior to the expiration of the Plaintiff’s term of appointment; (c) the 14 members registered prior to the expiration of the contract; (d) the 14 members registered prior to the expiration of the term of appointment; and (d) the 2001 examination result reveals that the 1st evaluation score was met, but the 200 research division’s score was less than the 1st base score; (b) the 3rd evaluation score was the 88% higher (57th, among the 61st class members) of the 201 semester to the Plaintiff; and (d) the 2nd member of the personnel committee was rejected on February 30, 2002.

(hereinafter referred to as “decision on Refusal to Re-election”) C.

1) The Plaintiff’s decision on the Special Committee on the Examination of Appeal against Teachers (hereinafter “Special Act on Remedy”) is the “Special Act on the Relief of Persons Disqualified for the Appointment of University Faculty Members.”

Upon its establishment, on October 14, 2005, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development Special Committee on Appeal against Teachers (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Committee”).

In the year 2002, ① did not have to calculate the research scores including the research scores for the second semester, ② arbitrarily, according to the Defendant’s subjective evaluation criteria and purpose, the lecture evaluation results for the Plaintiff was low, ③ private opinions of the same professors and professors.