1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was appointed as a health and welfare department of the D Graduate School and assistant professor of the C University. The term of appointment expired on August 13, 2013, and the Defendant is the chief director E of the school juristic person operating C University.

B. On July 15, 2013, the president of Cuniversity sent “Guidance on the expiration of the term of appointment of teachers” to the Plaintiff. The grounds for refusal of reappointment include only “the minutes of the sixth Board of Directors in E 2013 ( July 9, 2013)” in the column for refusal of reappointment, and there are no specific grounds for refusal of reappointment.

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

On July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition of rejection for reappointment with the Appeal Committee for Teachers. On October 24, 2013, the Appeal Committee for Teachers decided to revoke the instant disposition of rejection for reappointment on the ground that “the instant disposition of rejection for reappointment was not in conformity with the procedural requirements required to be minimum in the examination for reappointment, such as prior notification of the grounds for rejection for reappointment and the guarantee of the opportunity to vindicate the relevant teachers.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3, and 8

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered mental or physical damage due to the rejection disposition of reappointment of this case, and the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 20,000,100 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. In order for a teacher of a private university to claim consolation money for reasons of having received separate mental and physical pain in addition to property damage due to the illegal refusal of reappointment, the fact that the relevant teacher intentionally refused to be reappointed on the ground of another name under the intention to find out the relevant teacher at the university, although there is no reason to refuse the reappointment, or that the fact that the teacher refused to be reappointed on the ground of his/her refusal to be reappointed falls under the grounds for review of the prescribed appointment, such as personnel regulations.