1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details and details of the decision;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a school juristic person that was established on January 18, 1964 and operates C University (hereinafter “instant University”).

On March 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was appointed as an assistant professor of the pertinent university, and served as the position under the jurisdiction of the Department of International Trade, Culture, and International Trade, Department of International Commerce and Industry (E Campus).

B. According to the Intervenor’s personnel management regulations, promotion of faculty members belonging to the University of this case shall be conducted twice a year at the recommendation of the president ( March 1, 199). The chief director shall serve as the term required for promotion by class (four years where he/she is promoted from a associate professor to an associate professor) and shall meet the requirements for promotion in the examination under the Regulations on the Evaluation of Teaching Services.

(Articles 6 and 8(1). According to the faculty evaluation rules, teachers subject to the faculty evaluation shall meet all the criteria for internal evaluation (Article 4), and the faculty members subject to the faculty evaluation (Article 4), and the faculty members on the faculty evaluation (hereinafter referred to as the “evaluation subcommittee”) shall, after completing an evaluation based on a report on their achievements prepared by teachers, submit the results to the teachers’ personnel committee.

(Article 10). (c)

Around January 23, 2014, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff passed the evaluation of teaching staff for the promotion of the Plaintiff on March 1, 2014.” On February 12, 2014, the Teachers Personnel Committee decided to recommend the Plaintiff to be eligible for the promotion of the associate professor.

After that, the president of the university of this case recommended the appointment of a teaching staff member, who is not a “assistant professor” on the grounds of the fact-finding, etc. of the Plaintiff, and the board of directors of the Intervenor decided on February 14, 2014.

Accordingly, on March 1, 2014, the Plaintiff was reappointed as an assistant professor.

On October 14, 2014, the intervenor is scheduled to conduct a 28 teaching staff, including the plaintiff, to conduct a "evaluation of teaching services for promotion, etc." in March 1, 2015.