1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of decision on the petition examination;

A. On March 1, 2016, the Intervenor appointed the Intervenor as an assistant professor on March 1, 2016, and the appointment period was from March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2018.

B. On November 22, 2017, an intervenor who rendered the first rejection disposition against the intervenor's re-employment and the Defendant's revocation disposition against the intervenor filed an application for deliberation on re-employment with the Plaintiff. On December 28, 2017, the Plaintiff rendered the disposition of refusal of re-employment on the grounds of the non-conformity with the service evaluation.

Accordingly, the intervenor filed a request for review of a teacher's appeal seeking revocation of the above rejection disposition against reappointment with the defendant, and the defendant accepted it and rendered a decision revoking the above disposition on February 7, 2018 on the ground of procedural defects.

C. On March 12, 2018, the A University Teachers Personnel Committee re-examines the Intervenor’s achievement evaluation on the Intervenor’s second refusal disposition (1) to review the Intervenor’s achievements and to reject reappointment. On the same day, the Plaintiff sent a document containing the contents of the said achievement evaluation to the Intervenor, and the Plaintiff was able to present his/her opinion by attending the Teachers Personnel Committee or submitting a document to the Intervenor’s personnel committee to be held on March 28, 2018.

On March 28, 2018, the A University Teachers Personnel Committee decided to refuse to re-appoint the Intervenor.

(A) On April 3, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a disposition of refusal to re-appoint the Intervenor on the basis of the achievement evaluation set forth in paragraph (1) above (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”) on February 1, 2018, based on the Plaintiff’s evaluation of the Plaintiff’s refusal disposition of re-appointing the Intervenor, that the Intervenor failed to meet 75 points, which are the minimum requirements for meeting the requirements for meeting the requirements for meeting the requirements for meeting the requirements for meeting the requirements for meeting the requirements, and that the Intervenor was subject to 72 points without meeting the requirements for meeting the requirements for meeting the requirements for meeting the requirements for meeting the requirements for meeting the requirements for meeting the requirements set forth in the following table.

(A) Evidence No. 7 (3) shall be reappointed.