(b) Purpose of exclusion of a member of the teachers' disciplinary committee under Article 63 of the Private School Act;

(c) The meaning of procedures for fact-finding under Article 65 (1) of the Private School Act and the method of such investigation;

(d) The case holding that a disciplinary action does not become null and void even if some of the disciplinary members was a person subject to the disciplinary action due to the disciplinary action, where the right to evade the disciplinary action was newly established due to the amendment of the articles of incorporation after the disciplinary action was passed;

B. Article 63 of the Private School Act provides, “A member of the teachers’ disciplinary committee shall not participate in the deliberation of the relevant disciplinary case if he/she has deliberated on a disciplinary case on him/her or has a relationship with the person under disciplinary action.” The purport of the provision is that a member of the disciplinary committee is excluded only if he/she becomes the person under disciplinary action or has a relationship with the person under disciplinary action, and the purport that he/she is excluded only if he/she has a direct or indirect relationship with the person under disciplinary action. Thus, even if part of the disciplinary committee is related to a disciplinary case as a victim of an act under which

C. Article 65(1) of the Private School Act provides that “The teachers’ disciplinary committee shall investigate the truth in the deliberation of a disciplinary case.” Thus, in the deliberation of a disciplinary case, the teachers’ disciplinary committee must undergo the procedure to verify whether the facts of suspicion as stated in the written request for disciplinary action are true. However, the detailed procedure for such confirmation is sufficient in such a way that the disciplinary committee considers it appropriate, such as an examination of the disciplinary person, investigation of facts through the person under disciplinary action, the summons of the interested person or witness, the appraisal or examination by an expert, etc., in addition to providing the person under disciplinary action with an opportunity to make a statement

(d) The case holding that the disciplinary action does not become null and void even if some of the disciplinary members were subject to the disciplinary action, where the right to evade the disciplinary action was newly established due to the amendment of the articles of incorporation after the disciplinary action was brought.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

As pointed out in the instant disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff must assert and prove that there is a defect in violation of the procedure as alleged in the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action, and even if the Defendant Educational Foundation did not present specific arguments as to the above, it can be determined by the lower court (in addition, according to the previous records, it can be known that the Defendant Educational Foundation has presented detailed arguments as to the background of the instant disciplinary action, grounds for the disposition and reasons for the disciplinary action, etc., while the instant disciplinary action is legitimate in accordance with the Private School Act and the articles of incorporation). Thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the principle of pleading or the principle of party disposition, such as the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 63 of the Private School Act provides that "No member of the teachers' disciplinary committee shall participate in the deliberation of a disciplinary case on him/her or in a relationship with the person subject to the disciplinary action" means that a member of the disciplinary committee shall be excluded only if he/she becomes the person subject to the disciplinary action or has a relationship with him/her, and that he/she shall not be excluded only if he/she has a direct or indirect relationship with the person subject to the disciplinary action. Thus, even if he/she is related to a disciplinary case as a victim of an act in which part of the disciplinary committee members constitute a disciplinary action, such act alone shall not be deemed to constitute a ground for exclusion. The judgment below to the same purport is correct, and there is no illegality of misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 63 of the Private School Act

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Article 65 (1) of the Private School Act provides that "The teachers' disciplinary committee shall investigate the truth in the deliberation of a disciplinary case." Thus, in the deliberation of a disciplinary case, the teachers' disciplinary committee must undergo the procedure to verify whether the facts of suspicion as stated in the request for disciplinary action are true, but its detailed procedure is sufficient if the disciplinary committee conducts it in such a manner as it considers appropriate, such as an opportunity to make a statement and an opportunity to present evidence to the person under disciplinary action, investigation by himself/herself or through employees, summons of relevant persons or witnesses, appraisal or examination by experts, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable that the disciplinary committee of defendant corporation refused the attendance of the person under disciplinary action and did not present any evidence or demand any examination. From May 16, 1989 to June 19, 19 of the same year, the teachers' disciplinary committee of defendant corporation deliberated on the witness's statement prepared by the plaintiff at nine times during the deliberation of the disciplinary case, and it is not proper that the committee investigated the facts of the disciplinary action against the person under disciplinary action and its determination by the committee's reasoning.

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Unless the Private School Act at the time of the disciplinary action or the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation does not have any provision on the challenge against the disciplinary committee members, even if the enforcement decree of the above Act and the above articles of incorporation were newly established after the disciplinary action were taken, it cannot be deemed that there was a challenge against the disciplinary committee members at the time of the disciplinary action, or that there was a duty to disclose the list in advance in response to the request of the disciplinary committee members who intend to exercise the right to challenge the defendant corporation. Thus, the defendant corporation did not disclose the list of the disciplinary committee members in advance in disciplinary action against the plaintiff. Although it is insufficient at the time of the original trial on this point, the court below's decision is just and the court below's error does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The arguments are without merit.

5. Ground of appeal No. 5

As duly admitted by the court below, the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation did not have any explicit provision prohibiting a person who has an interest in the grounds for disciplinary action in the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation at the time of the disciplinary action. After the disciplinary action became final and conclusive, the articles of incorporation was amended to prohibit a member from participating in the disciplinary action by a motion for challenge of a person under disciplinary action and a decision of evading the disciplinary committee. At the time of the formation of the plaintiff's teachers' disciplinary committee against the plaintiff, the chief of a graduate school who is a professor from the beginning of a graduate school with high order in practice, shall be selected in order from the beginning of the graduate school with high order in practice. In addition, disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial procedures inside the school, the chief of the law school, the principal of the school, and the principal of the school who is a general person in charge of school affairs, and the principal of the plaintiff's graduate school belonging to the local council, shall be included in each disciplinary committee member, and if seven teachers were selected by the president of the university and the president of the university prior to dismissal.

The reason is somewhat different, and the judgment of the court below that made the same conclusion is eventually justifiable, and the appeal on this point is eventually without merit.

6. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 6 and 7

The court below's finding of facts as to the point of view that the plaintiff committed the misconduct subject to disciplinary action of this case, etc. shall be justified by comparing the evidence presented by the court below with the records and comparing it with the records. It shall not be deemed that the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

If the facts are as recognized by the court below, even if considering all the circumstances cited by the theory of lawsuit, the court below's determination that the dismissal disposition against the plaintiff is justified is reasonable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to discretion of disciplinary action such as the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

7. 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 Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)