The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Of the appeal costs, the part relating to the intervention by the defendant shall be the intervenor and the remainder.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2. 이 법원에서 고쳐쓰는 부분 ▣ 판결이유의 각 해당 부분에서 각 “B”를 각 “피고 보조참가인”으로 고친다.

▣ 제1심판결서 제2쪽 제11행의 “임상조교수와”를 “임상강사와”로 고친다.

3. Additional determination by this Court

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the defendant assistant intervenor 1) The defendant asserts that "(1) the grounds for refusal of reappointment should be limited to the act within the term of appointment in principle, and therefore, it is unlawful to consider the grounds for refusal of reappointment prior to the term of appointment as the grounds for refusal, and that there is no duty to act, and there is a problem in communication and cooperation with the same fees. (3) The grounds for appeal in this case are not the violation of the duty of teacher as a teacher, but the plaintiff can be held responsible by the method of cancellation of the permission for concurrent office as a doctor of the hospital under his jurisdiction or exclusion from the clinical Medical Treatment, and giving only the role as a research professor." Thus, the defendant assistant intervenor's appeal by the defendant assistant intervenor, unlike the rejection disposition prior to the date of appointment, deleted the objective items of the rejection disposition at the time of reappointment and modified the criteria for allocation according to subjective increase in terms of objective reasons, and thus, it can not be ensured as a prior deliberation based on objective reasons.