beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by all of the Plaintiff, including the part arising from participation.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 1, 2013, the Plaintiff appointed D University operated by the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant University”) as a new academic assistant assistant professor (non-standing assistant professor) with the employment period up to February 28, 2019 as of February 28, 2019.
B. On October 4, 2018, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the term of appointment expires and that he/she may apply for deliberation on reappointment, and the Plaintiff submitted an application for deliberation on reappointment to the president of the instant university on October 22, 2018.
C. On November 1, 2018, the teachers personnel committee of the instant university notified the Plaintiff of the result of deliberation on “re-employment” (hereinafter “the first notification”) on the ground that the Plaintiff is entitled to submit its opinion by November 16, 2018, on the ground that “Article 8 of the Regulations on Non-Retirementing Teachers [at least average A B 65% and below one (100%) of the standards for re-employment (at least one (100%) of the Regulations on Non-Retirementing Teachers every two years as a result of lectures).
The intervenor decided to refuse the reappointment of the board of directors after deliberation by the Teachers' Personnel Committee on the materials submitted by the plaintiff. On December 28, 2018, the intervenor notified the plaintiff of his refusal of reappointment on the same ground as the first notice.
(2) The Intervenor’s failure to meet the standards for reappointment as stated in the disposition is as follows. The Intervenor’s failure to meet the requirements for reappointment is as follows: (a) the assessment of lecture (A’s average 65% or more, every two years) the first (2013-14) domestic and foreign technical research land (2015-16) 1 (2017-16) 3 (2015-14) 2 (2015-14) 3 (2015-16) 3 (2017-18-18) 180% 65% 65% 65% 100% 100% 100% 2057.83% or 60.7.9% 7.9% or 100% 200% below the satisfaction of the requirements.
E. On January 28, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with C seeking the revocation of the instant disposition. On April 24, 2019, the Defendant recognized that the Intervenor did not include graduate school subjects in calculating the lecture evaluation points. However, the instant disposition is taken.