1. The main part of the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The appeals review committee for defendant teachers on February 22, 2017.

Details of the disposition

On March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a public official of the National University of Law, a college of Law, a shipbuilding engineering and an associate professor.

(Contract Period: From March 1, 2011 to February 28, 2017), the president of the Defendant B University notified the Plaintiff of his application for the expiration of the term of appointment on August 31, 2016, and the Plaintiff applied for reappointment to the president of the Defendant B University on September 6, 2016.

On October 4, 2016, the examination committee of research performance (the first set) evaluated that the 7th excluding Part 1 of the Plaintiff’s research performance did not satisfy the conditions above the average “e” level, which is the standard of research performance.

(Period of Examination: From September 19, 2016 to October 4, 2016, the Personnel Committee of the University of Science and Technology notified the Plaintiff of an opportunity to vindicate the results of the examination of the research performance on October 12, 2016. On October 28, 2016, the Committee decided to hear the Plaintiff’s vindication and give the Plaintiff an opportunity to second examine the results of the research performance.

On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted 6 research performance by replacing 2 parts of this paper, and the 2nd examination committee of research performance (2nd) evaluated that the Plaintiff’s research performance did not meet the conditions above the average “assum” level.

(Period of Review: From October 31, 2016 to November 7, 2016), the teachers’ personnel committee decided to refuse the Plaintiff’s reappointment on December 15, 2016.

On December 27, 2016, the president of the Defendant B University refused the Plaintiff’s reappointment on the ground that the results of the evaluation of research results (not less than 300 points) pursuant to Article 20 of the Regulations on the Appointment of Full-time Professors and Teaching Assistants (hereinafter “Employment Regulations”) and Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Rule on the Appointment of Full-time Professors of the University (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”) did not meet the standards for reappointment that should be higher than the average of each letter.

(hereinafter “instant decision to refuse reappointment.” On January 4, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed to the appeals review committee against Defendant Teachers’ Appeal. However, the appeals review committee for Defendant Teachers’ Appeal on research records on March 9, 2017.