1. On March 28, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that the disposition rejecting reappointment made against the Plaintiff on March 28, 2016 is invalid.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff was reappointed on February 27, 2015, since the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a professor (class full-time lecturer) of the Department of Social Welfare (class) in the Department of C’s School operated by the Defendant.

(Term of Office from March 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016).B

According to the Regulations on the Appointment of Teachers, a person subject to examination for reappointment, who is a graduate school university faculty member, shall submit a list of research achievements and research achievements published within the existing term to the president in a certain form (Article 7(1) and (2) 4-2; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the president shall submit the evaluation results under the Regulations on the Evaluation of Teaching Status to the "Examination Committee for Appointment of Teachers" (hereinafter referred to as the "Examination Committee for Appointment of Teachers") and shall recommend the president to appoint teachers after obtaining consent from the C Educational Personnel Committee for Faculty (hereinafter referred to as the "Personnel Committee") (Article 7(2)), and shall be eligible to be reappointed if the result of the evaluation of a person subject to examination for reappointment exceeds Grade B at the average level (Article 5 of the same Regulations). The Regulations on the Evaluation of Faculty Faculty Status, which is the same university’s school regulations, is divided into the areas of education, research, and service, into 45 points in each area of education, 45 points in research service, 410 points in each area of research service.

(Article 4, Section 5). (c)

The Plaintiff submitted research records, etc. from March 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016, which were the term of office of the president, to the president, pursuant to the guidance of the president of the CGD (hereinafter referred to as the “president”), and applied for reappointment.

C. The president of the Institute of Graduate School transferred the data submitted by the Plaintiff to the Faculty Re-Appointment Review Committee to conduct the faculty evaluation of the Plaintiff.

On December 10, 2015, the Board of Review on Appointment of Teachers: (a) on December 10, 2015, the Plaintiff’s 79 points in total and 79 points in total; and (b) on December 10, 201, falls under the category B from 7 to 88 points in total.