1. On August 31, 2016, the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of a disposition rejecting the reappointment between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor (2016-469).

1. Details of the decision;

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates the C University (hereinafter “instant University”), and the Intervenor was appointed as an assistant professor in exclusive charge of tourism management and lectures of the instant university on March 1, 2013 as the status of the Non-Retirementing Teachers on March 1, 2013 and entered into a renewal contract on an annual basis.

B. (1) On November 13, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for review of reappointment with respect to the period from March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2017 with the pertinent university. (2) On January 12, 2016, the instant university notified the Intervenor of the decline’s refusal of reappointment on the ground that the Intervenor’s examination of demotion’s lectures during the year 1, 2015 and the second semester fell short of the average of 85 points for reappointment.

3) On February 5, 2016, an intervenor filed a petition with the Defendant for review of the appeal regarding the disposition of refusal of reappointment as to the disposition of refusal of reappointment. On April 30, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the disposition of refusal of reappointment on the ground that there is a defect in the procedure, such as failure to provide an opportunity to present opinions under the latter part of Article 53-2(7) of the Private School Act. (4) On May 11, 2016, the teachers personnel committee of the University of this case (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) on May 11, 2016 of the Intervenor’s review of reappointment on March 1, 2016, the Intervenor’s average of the class satisfaction of the class satisfaction of the second and the class satisfaction of the second semester (85 points), the average point of which is less than 83.84 points, and that the number of subjects less than 80 points falls short of 2, the requirements for reappointment, and notified the Intervenor’s attendance to present his opinion on May 30, 30.

5. On May 30, 2016, the teachers’ personnel committee of the pertinent university held a committee at the time of the Intervenor’s attendance to confirm that the Intervenor falls short of the above criteria for reappointment and to recommend dismissal as of February 29, 2016, which is the expiration date of the appointment period of the Intervenor, on the grounds that the Intervenor’s explanation alone does not constitute grounds for remedy for the decline of reappointment.