1. The Defendant filed an application for revocation of the disposition of refusal to re-appoint (2015-248) between the Plaintiff and B on September 9, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates C University.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Intervenor”) was newly appointed as a construction engineering and full-time lecturer at C University on March 1, 1996, and was promoted as an assistant professor on March 1, 1999, and was appointed as an assistant professor on March 1, 2005, and was appointed as an associate professor on March 1, 2005 (from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 201).

B. The first assistant intervenor in the previous disposition is attached to the Plaintiff at the expiration of the appointment period of associate professor

2. Theses and works written in the table have been submitted as his research results and filed for re-election.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant performance” and, when part of the results is observed, the title “1 thesis” and “second works” are indicated according to the sequence and type. 2) The Regulations on the Evaluation of Teachers’ Status of C University (the part relating to the instant case) (attached Form).

1.as described in paragraph 1 of the relevant provisions;

(hereinafter referred to as "evaluation regulations")

Article 30(1) [Attachment 4-1] Subparag. 1 and Article 30(1) [Attachment 4-1] provides that in order for a person newly appointed as a full-time lecturer prior to the end of 2007 to be reappointed, his research score per year during the period subject to examination shall not be less than an average of 100 points. Since the supplementary intervenor was appointed as an associate professor on March 1, 2005, the research score for the six-year period during which the associate professor is employed should not be less than 600 points. 3) During the review of the reappointment of the supplementary intervenor (hereinafter “first review”), the main issue was whether the supplementary intervenor’s research score for Article 23(1)5 through 70 points of the Evaluation Regulations is a work sent to an international membership or organization (hereinafter “international organization pre-examination”).

On February 17, 2011, the Defendant considers that no research score shall be given to each of the above works because the works do not fall under the category of works exhibited in international organizations.