The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. In the case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Western Graduate School, the lower court determined that, inasmuch as the removal of the Plaintiff’s associate professor at an international university is null and void, the Plaintiff’s status as the Plaintiff’s associate professor at an international university is naturally continued as long as the removal of the Plaintiff’s position is null and void, unless there exist grounds for dismissal as prescribed by the Private School Act. Second, in the university society, unless there exist special grounds for disqualification, the term of appointment expires, and third, in the Plaintiff’s associate professor at an international university and college, the Plaintiff’s position as the Plaintiff’s associate professor at the end of the term of appointment is not implicitly approved, and the Plaintiff’s position as the Plaintiff’s associate professor at the time of the termination of the term of appointment is not explicitly approved, and the Plaintiff was re-appointed as the Plaintiff’s associate professor at the time of the termination of the term of appointment, and the Plaintiff is still an associate professor at the international university and the Plaintiff’s management fees for the first time after the expiration of the term of appointment.

First, in the case of a teacher employed for a specified period, his status as a teacher is finally lost at the expiration of the specified period, and the provisions on the guarantee of status as a teacher under the Private School Act such as restrictions on dismissal of a teacher are not prohibited until the expiration of the employment contract relationship due to the expiration of the specified period. Therefore, it is not necessary to maintain the status of a teacher even after the expiration of the remaining term of appointment by null and void removal disposition taken prior to the expiration of the term of appointment.

Second, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of practices regarding automatic reappointment, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, and in light of the series of situation in which the Plaintiff’s conduct was launched, even if the removal disposition against the Plaintiff is invalidated, it cannot be exempt from the intentional responsibility for the above situation as university professors who require strict moral standards. Therefore, it is difficult for the Extraordinary Institute to presume that the Plaintiff was reappointed as an associate professor at the above international university at the expiration of the above period as well as the expiration of the above period.

Third, the above alleged facts alone cannot be readily concluded that either the Plaintiff’s associate professor status or the Defendant Masung Institute, etc. impliedly accepted the Plaintiff’s status as an associate professor or re-appointed the Plaintiff. Thus, the above assertion seeking payment on the premise that the Plaintiff’s status as an associate professor is maintained is without merit.

Fourth, the removal of the plaintiff from office against the plaintiff of the Scenic School cannot be deemed as constituting a tort against the plaintiff even if the removal from office is made invalid as part of the legitimate execution of business, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's above assertion against the defendants who is liable for damages should not be rejected.

2. We affirm the decision of the court below in light of the purport of the relevant provisions including Article 53-2 (3) of the Private School Act concerning the evidence relation prepared by the court below based on the records and the appointment and dismissal of teachers who are not the head of a school, and the legal principles as stated in the decision of 91Da1134 delivered on June 25, 191, which held that his status relationship is terminated naturally due to the expiration of the term of appointment of university faculty members, and the above decision of the court below is acceptable. There are no errors of law such as misconception of facts, lack of reasons, misapprehension of legal principles, etc. due to the violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit, and there are no errors of law such as misunderstanding of facts, lack of reasons, and misapprehension of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and there

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)