1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a school foundation that establishes and operates a D University (which was the original “E University,” but was changed to the “F University,” and was changed to the present name) and the plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer on May 27, 191 and then was promoted as an assistant professor on April 1, 1996.

B. Around August 31, 1999, the Defendant commenced the procedures for review of reappointment with respect to the Plaintiff. Article 28 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of D University’s Staff at the time of the examination of reappointment: (a) the grounds for exclusion from reappointment are as follows: (b) the evaluation field, items, grades, scores, and evaluators with respect to the evaluation of the teacher’s performance are indicated in the “Service Performance Appraisal Table”; (c) however, without providing the detailed criteria and methods for the calculation of each evaluation area and grade, the principal of the university only provided that the standards for the evaluation of the reappointment were determined; (d) the Defendant did not otherwise provide for the specific procedures for the examination of reappointment; (e) the Plaintiff’s research performance during the appointment of assistant professors meets the research performance standards prescribed in Article 25(1) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff at D University; but (e) the Plaintiff’s service performance rating falls short of the total service performance rating standards prescribed in Article 28(1)198(b)198(3) of the Act.

(1)The number of points(7) of teaching and research activities (6) of the evaluation field and the number of points(6) of the student guidance activities (6) of the school development level(6) of the working status(6) of the 25th class and points(25 points).