1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the plaintiff's argument of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. Article 10(1) of the Rules on the Appointment of the Plaintiff’s Claim provides that “The president shall notify a person subject to reappointment of matters necessary for the expiration of the term of appointment and reappointment not later than four months prior to the expiration of the term of appointment.” However, the president of the Korea Development Institute without notifying the Plaintiff of such fact by April 30, 2013, which was four months prior to the expiration of the term of employment, and is thus unlawful.

B. The instant appointment rules relating to the appointment of professors C (hereinafter “D University B Research Personnel appointment rules”) do not provide for four months prior to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

However, Article 10(1) of the "Rules on the Appointment of Faculty Members of D University" provides for the procedures for notification four months prior to the date of appointment.

However, Article 10(1) of the above Regulations on the Appointment of Teachers provides the same content as Article 11-3(2) of the Public Educational Officials Act, and the pertinent provision of the above Regulations on the Appointment of Teachers and the pertinent Public Educational Officials Act applies to a full-time teacher of a D University who is appointed pursuant to the above Regulations on the Appointment of Teachers and the Public Educational Officials Act and has the status of public educational officials

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du11690, Sept. 13, 2013). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, premised on the necessity of notifying the Plaintiff of the expiration date of employment and the requirements for appointment four months prior to the reappointment procedure.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.