[2] The scope of binding force of the decision of the Appeal Commission for Teachers, and whether the court shall revoke the decision of the Appeal Commission for Teachers, in a case where the Appeal Commission for Teachers, who received unfavorable measures, decides to revoke the disposition on the ground that the ground is not recognized in itself, and where it is determined that some of the grounds for the disposition are recognized as a result of the deliberation in the administrative litigation procedure brought by the school juristic person

[3] Whether a court may dismiss a request by a school juristic person, etc. without necessary cancellation of a decision made by the Appeal Commission for Teachers on a request for review of an appeal by a teacher of a private school who has been subject to an unfavorable disposition, where the internal rules, which are the grounds for the unfavorable disposition against a teacher, are unlawful and invalid, and the internal rules are legitimate, but there is no evidence that a teacher violated internal rules in the administrative litigation proceedings filed by the school juristic person, etc. against the said decision (affirmative)

[2] A decision made by an appeals review committee for teachers has binding force on a school juristic person, etc., and such decision extends to the judgment on specific grounds of illegality, such as the recognition and judgment of facts constituting a premise thereof, i.e., unfavorable disposition. Therefore, if an administrative litigation is not instituted against cancellation of a request for review of an appeal by a private school teacher, or the court dismisses a request for cancellation of a decision made by an appeals review committee for teachers in an administrative litigation instituted by a school juristic person, etc. against it, and such decision becomes final and conclusive as it is, only the ordering of the decision and the judgment on the grounds constituting the premise thereof shall belong to a school juristic person, etc., and even if the decision was determined differently from the decision made by an appeals review committee for teachers in an administrative litigation brought by the relevant school juristic person, such decision shall not have a binding force. Therefore, if a private school teacher requests a review of an appeal to the relevant school juristic person after receiving any unfavorable disposition, and the appeals review committee for teachers has made a decision to revoke the decision made by the relevant school juristic person as a result of the review committee’s decision becomes void.

[3] Where the Appeal Commission for Teachers decided to revoke a disposition of a school juristic person, etc. on the ground that the internal rules, which are the basis for a disadvantageous disposition against a school juristic person, were unlawful and thus, the internal rules were legitimate, but there is no evidence to deem that a teacher violated such internal rules in the administrative litigation proceedings brought by the school juristic person, etc., the court may dismiss a request of the school juristic person, etc. without the need to revoke the decision of the Appeal Committee for Teachers, even though the grounds for the decision made by the Appeal Committee for Teachers and the judgment are different from the grounds for the decision made by the Appeal Committee for Teachers and the relevant decision. This is because, insofar as a school juristic person, etc. is not deemed to have violated the internal rules of teachers

In addition, even if a school juristic person becomes final and conclusive as the decision of the Appeal Committee for Teachers which is the object of an administrative litigation and is bound by it, the binding force of the case is limited to the case concerned and does not extend to any other case. Therefore, it is necessary for a court to revoke it on the ground that it can apply the internal rules at issue in other cases.

1. Case history

A. (1) The Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was a professor of ○ University 1 and worked as a full-time professor from 1995 to 200, with an order of △△ University 1 and concurrent office. (2) According to the enforcement rule of ○ University 2 (amended on February 5, 2015; hereinafter “instant enforcement rule”), the Director of the Medical Center, upon request of the head of the hospital to examine concurrent office and non-permanent office, shall determine whether to terminate the examination after deliberation by the Human Resources Committee of 20, 100, 200, 100, 200, 100, 200, 200, 100, 200, 200, 200, 10, 50,000, 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00).

B. On March 22, 2016, the Intervenor filed a petition review seeking revocation of the termination with the Defendant. Accordingly, on June 1, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision revoking the termination of the instant case (hereinafter “instant decision”) on the ground that “Article 5(1)1 and 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case restricts teachers’ status unreasonably, and the termination of the instant case is not based on reasonable standards and means, and the disadvantages of the Intervenor arising therefrom are serious, and thus it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the termination.” The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant decision.

C. (1) The first instance court determined that Article 5(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of this case was unlawful since the provision of the above Enforcement Rule cannot be deemed justifiable, since Article 5(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of this case was to prevent the situation that is significantly infringed on the educational function and treatment function of a university affiliated with the university, and its purpose is just and appropriate, and the Defendant’s determination that the above Enforcement Rule of this case was unlawful on the ground that the Defendant’s determination was not unlawful since it did not render any judgment as to the validity of the grounds for termination under the erroneous premise that the above subparagraph 2 of Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Rule of this case was unlawful, and thus, the Defendant’s determination that the above Enforcement Rule of this case was unlawful.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a decision made by the teachers' appeals review committee, the propriety of the decision shall be determined at the time of the decision, but the decision shall not be subject to the determination of administrative litigation on the ground that the grounds that have already been asserted in the appeal review stage are not subject to the determination of administrative litigation. Therefore, the grounds that were not asserted in the appeal review stage may be asserted in administrative litigation, and the court may also deliberate and decide thereon (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8217, Aug. 10, 1990).

The court below held that Article 5 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of this case, like the first instance court, is unlawful as it lacks legitimacy as an evaluation standard for clinical professors of medical colleges, and Article 5 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of this case is legitimate as its purpose is just and proper. Furthermore, it is just to examine whether there is a ground for termination under Article 5 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Rule, which was not decided by the defendant in the examination of a petition, and to determine the illegality of the decision by examining whether there is a ground for termination under Article 5 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of this case.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The decision of an appeals review committee for teachers has binding force on a school juristic person, etc., and such decision extends to the determination of specific grounds for illegality, such as the acknowledgement and determination of facts constituting the basis for the decision, i.e., unfavorable disposition, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7705, Dec. 9, 2005, etc.). Therefore, if an administrative litigation is not instituted against the cancellation of an appeal request by a teacher of a private school, or where an administrative litigation is instituted against the school juristic person, etc., the court’s rejection of a request seeking the cancellation of a decision of an appeals review committee for teacher, and such decision becomes final and conclusive, it shall be deemed that only the school juristic person has the binding force, even if the decision was judged differently from the decision of an appeals review committee for teacher of a private school, and the request is filed with an appeals review committee for teacher of a private school after receiving any unfavorable disposition, and the decision is revoked without determination on the legitimacy of the decision, the decision should be deemed reasonable as the result of such decision made by the school juristic person’s review committee.

However, in a case where the National Pension Review Committee for Teachers decided to revoke a disposition of a school juristic person, etc. on the ground that the internal rules, which are the basis for the decision that the school juristic person, etc. made unfavorable disposition against a teacher, were unlawful and thus, such internal rules were lawful, but there is no evidence to deem that the teacher violated such internal rules in the administrative litigation procedure brought by the school juristic person, etc., the court may dismiss the request of the school juristic person, etc. without the need to revoke the decision of the National Pension Review Committee, even though the grounds for the decision made by the National Pension Review Committee for Teachers and the judgment are different from the grounds for the decision made by the National Pension Review Committee for Teachers. This is because, insofar as the school juristic person,

In addition, even if a school juristic person becomes final and conclusive as the decision of the Appeal Committee for Teachers which is the object of an administrative litigation and is bound by it, the binding force of the case is limited to the case concerned and does not extend to any other case. Therefore, it is necessary for a court to revoke it on the ground that it can apply the internal rules at issue in other cases.

Ultimately, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the binding force of the revocation judgment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)