1. On June 21, 2017, the Defendant’s motion for refusal of reappointment between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor (2017-390) is filed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a school juristic person operating the C University. 2) The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was appointed as an associate professor of the C University on September 1, 2007 and served as a associate professor at C University Law School (term: from September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2016).

B. The Plaintiff’s first refusal disposition 1) The president of Cuniversity notified the Intervenor of the expiration date of his/her reappointment on April 6, 2016 on the part of the Intervenor, and the Intervenor applied for reappointment on April 15, 2016. 2) As a result of examining whether the Intervenor was reappointed at a professional law school (hereinafter “Review Committee”) on May 11, 2016, determined that the Intervenor’s review score based on the “Review Committee for Appointment” was 50 points below 60 points under the Review Regulations for Appointment of Faculty Members at C University, and thus, the Intervenor is not eligible for reappointment.

Accordingly, the professional law school president has notified the president of C University of his/her opinion that the proposal for reappointment of the Intervenor is not possible.

3) The teachers’ personnel committee for C University universities (hereinafter “personnel committee”) shall be deemed only to be the teachers’ personnel committee.

On June 16, 2016, the review evaluation of the reappointment review committee is null and void because it is not objectively conducted in accordance with reasonable standards, and the review evaluation score of the intervenor should be changed to at least 60 points, so the intervenor is entitled to be reappointed. (4) On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff’s board of directors determined that the intervenor is entitled to be reappointed. The Plaintiff’s board of directors, on the ground that there is a problem that the teachers’ personnel committee changed the review score of the reappointment review committee to at least 60 points without any particular ground, provided that it is re-appointed to review whether to re-appoint the intervenor after re

5 On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff provided education, research, and student guidance to the intervenors.