1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The cost of participation in the proceedings.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 2002, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) entered into a contract for reappointment with the Plaintiff on March 1, 201, every year, after being newly appointed as an associate professor with the D Department of C University operated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff University”), and finally, concluded a contract for reappointment with the Plaintiff from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014.

B. (1) On August 31, 2009, the school affairs committee of the Plaintiff’s college discussed the abolition and abolition of the department, and on the ground that the total number of students enrolled in the department belonging to the Intervenor falls under the attached Table 3 [Attachment 3] of Article 3(4) [Attachment 3] of the School Regulations of the Plaintiff’s University (hereinafter “School Regulations”) (less than 120 students enrolled in the first and fourth years), the said department was decided to abolish the said department.

(2) The Plaintiff, from October 9, 2009 to October 15, 2009, announced the amendment of the school regulations, the main contents of which are to abolish the department D from October 9 to October 15, 2009, followed the procedures for submitting opinions on the amendment. On October 20, 2009, the Plaintiff promulgated the amendment after deliberation and resolution by the school regulations committee, and reported it to the Minister of Education.

(3) The amended school regulations were enforced on March 1, 2010, and Article 4 of the Addenda was abolished as of February 28, 2010, and stipulated that the registered students of the abolished department may maintain their existing affiliation or modify their affiliation at their wishes.

Accordingly, the number of registered students of the D Department reduced, and three has become three as of February 2013, and one of them has graduated from the D Department and the remaining two persons have committed a previous offense, so that there is no registered student in D Department as of January 1, 2014.

C. On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of his refusal to be reappointed on the grounds of “the dismissal from office due to closure or completion of the reappointment” as a result of the review of the Intervenor’s reappointment, and the Defendant’s revocation (1) of this case.