1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is either dismissal or dismissal as set forth in the following 2, and the Plaintiff’s assertion added or emphasized by this court as to the assertion added or emphasized by this court is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following “3. Additional determination”, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance

2. On the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part that was dismissed or cut shall be "Evidence B Nos. 1 through 25" as "Evidence B Nos. 1 through 25, 34 through 36," and the third side of the judgment of first instance as follows.

“D” designated as a consulting company for the restructuring of C has been subject to the management consultation and the implementation of its own restructuring and management improvement. The nine implementation tasks for C’s restructuring (hereinafter referred to as “corporate restructuring tasks”) shall be conducted after consulting on August 16, 2010 to November 15, 2010.

As a result, I suggested the improvement of the school staff evaluation system and the establishment of a performance-based performance-based incentive system as follows.The third part of the judgment of first instance, the 10th to 15th part of the judgment of first instance, is as follows.

On November 15, 2010, the Defendant organized a “university Development Committee” comprised of 14 members for the purpose of gathering opinions on how to implement and implement restructuring tasks according to the management consulting results. From November 15, 2010 to November 29, 2010, the University Development Committee has held four meetings regarding restructuring tasks, including the agenda for the introduction of performance-based incentives, and held a public hearing for employees on November 24, 2010. (4) On November 29, 2010, the Defendant explained the contents of the above paragraph (3) at the total faculty meeting of the first instance court, which attended a majority of all the former faculty members, to the following parts:

"(6D) restructuring tasks of C from February 13, 2012 to March 2, 2012.