1. We affirm that the Defendant’s refusal to re-appoint the Plaintiff on November 16, 2015 is null and void.

2. The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff is reappointed on March 1, 201 as a full-time lecturer at C University operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant School”) after being appointed as a unification and full-time lecturer at C University, and the term of the contract on March 1, 2012 is one year.

B. The Plaintiff, on August 13, 2012, ordered the Defendant to take part in the class hours of other professors and repair them. The Plaintiff criticizes other professors during the class hours, led other students to take part in the class hours, led students to feel biased, led other students to criticize and feel students, taking a strong class method, and forcing other students to take part in a specific subject, and taking a disciplinary action for three months of suspension from office (hereinafter “previous disciplinary action”).

(2) Meanwhile, Article 9 of the Regulations on the Appointment of Non-Retirement Classers at Defendant School provides that “The achievements made not later than four months prior to the expiration date of the contract shall meet the deliberation criteria by field” with respect to the terms and conditions of the appointment of full-time instructors, and the deliberation criteria by subparagraph 1 of the attached Table above are 150 points, and the deliberation criteria by the educational business area under subparagraph 1 of the attached Table is 150 points, and the education business evaluation items and paragraph 7-2 of the attached Table 1 of the Educational Business Evaluation Regulation (attached Table 1) of the Defendant School shall be reduced by 200 points of the deliberation point.

3) The Defendant, on December 20, 2012, issued a disposition of refusal to re-appoint the Plaintiff on December 20, 2012 (hereinafter “previous disposition of refusal to re-appoint the Plaintiff”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s reputation in the educational business area during the Plaintiff’s evaluation period (from March 1, 2012, to October 31, 2012, the expiration date of the contract period, which is four months before the expiration date of the contract period) fell short of 150

AB made it.

C. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff confirmed the invalidation of the previous disciplinary action against the Defendant on March 20, 2013, as Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap21876, and rejected the claim for unpaid wages due to the said disciplinary action and the rejection of the previous appointment.