[임금등][공2010하,1873]
[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the rejection of reappointment based on the above review criteria is legitimate, on the basis of the part that limited the subjects of achievement evaluation to the education area and the service area, except the research area, and the part that targets the refusal of reappointment of 20% of them, among the above evaluations based on the evaluation of their achievements, among the "Rules on the Evaluation of the Achievements of the Non-Retirement Age Member" which applies to the examination of the reappointment of university faculty members, on the basis of the above evaluation of their achievements
[2] The validity of the decision to revoke a disposition rejecting reappointment of a teacher whose term of employment has expired among the decision of the Appeal Review Committee for Faculty Members, and whether a school juristic person obligated to review reappointment, based on the binding force of the decision, is liable to compensate for property damage equivalent to wages arising from a tort just on such circumstance where the school juristic person fails to perform its duty
[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the rejection of reappointment based on the above review criteria is legitimate, on the basis of the part that limited the subjects of achievement evaluation to the education area and the service area, except the research area, and the part that targets the refusal of reappointment of 20% of them, among the above evaluation criteria, among the "Rules on the Evaluation of Achievements with Respect to Former Teachers of the Non-Retirement Age" applied to the examination for the reappointment of university faculty members, on the basis of the above evaluation of their achievements
[2] According to Articles 7(1) and 10(2) of the "Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status", the Appeal Commission for Teachers shall examine appeals against disciplinary action against teachers of various levels of schools and other unfavorable measures against their will (including rejection of reappointment against a teacher whose appointment period has expired) and shall bind the person in charge of disposition. The decision to revoke the disposition to refuse reappointment of a teacher whose appointment period has expired among the decision to reject the appeal by the Appeal Commission for Teachers is limited to imposing procedural obligations to re-appoint the relevant teacher to the relevant school juristic person, etc. by cancelling the disposition to reject reappointment, and does not necessarily have the same legal effect as the relevant teacher is directly reappointed. Furthermore, even if the school juristic person, etc., who is obligated to be reappointed on the basis of the binding force of the decision to revoke the disposition to refuse reappointment of a teacher, such circumstance alone alone does not lead to liability for damages equivalent to the wages of the relevant teacher, and only if such result is acknowledged as a result of reexamination, the above liability for damages can be affirmed.
[1] Article 31(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 53-2(7) of the Private School Act / [2] Articles 7(1) and 10(2) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status; Article 750 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Leesan, Attorney Lee Dong-ia, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant School Foundation (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Yang Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Busan High Court Decision 2007Na11491 Decided December 26, 2007
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Scope of adjudication;
The plaintiffs filed a claim for wages in arrears from March 1, 1999, the first appointment date to February 28, 2006, the expiration date of the final appointment period, and ② from March 1, 2006, the following day after the expiration date of the appointment period to reinstatement, ③ claims for consolation money or compensation for property damage equivalent to wages, and ③ from March 1, 2006 to February 29, 2008, but all of them lost. The scope of appeal was limited to the claim for wages in this case and damages. Accordingly, the scope of appeal by the court of final appeal is limited to the claim for wages in this case (2).
2. Judgment on the appeal
A. As to the claim for wages
The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Plaintiffs lost their status as ○ University teacher upon the expiration of the reappointment period on February 28, 2006, and that the Plaintiffs’ wage claim based on the premise that the Plaintiffs maintained their status as ○ University teacher thereafter.
However, the petition of appeal and the petition of appeal filed by the Plaintiffs did not state specific and explicit grounds on which part of the judgment of the lower court on the above claim for wages was in violation of the statutes. Ultimately, the appeal on the claim for wages cannot be deemed as not submitting legitimate grounds of appeal.
B. As to the claim for damages
(1) After compiling the evidence of its employment, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the rejection of reappointment of this case based on the aforementioned review criteria is legitimate, on the basis of the part that limited the subjects of the evaluation to the educational and service areas and the research areas, and on the evaluation of the achievements in the above areas subject to the evaluation of the achievements, which are applied to the review of reappointment of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “the provisions of this case”), and the relative evaluation of the subjects of the evaluation of the achievements in the above areas subject to the evaluation of the achievements, all of which are subject to the rejection of reappointment, is legitimate.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the illegality of the above standard of review.
(2) According to Articles 7(1) and 10(2) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status, the Appeal Commission for Teachers (hereinafter “Review Committee”) shall examine appeals against disciplinary action against teachers of various levels of schools, and other unfavorable measures against their will (including rejection of reappointment against a teacher whose appointment period has expired), and make decisions on the appeal review in binding force on the person who is subject to disposition.
The decision to revoke the disposition rejecting the reappointment of a teacher whose term of appointment has expired among the decision of the Appeal Review Committee on the appeal review is to only revoke the disposition rejecting the reappointment, thereby imposing procedural obligations to re-appoint the relevant teacher to school juristic persons, etc., and it does not necessarily impose an obligation to re-appoint the relevant teacher on the relevant school juristic persons, etc. or recognize the legal effect such as the direct reappointment of the teacher.
Furthermore, even if a school foundation, etc. obligated to examine the reappointment, based on the binding force of the decision to revoke the disposition rejecting reappointment, fails to perform its duty, such circumstance alone does not immediately lead to the liability for damages equivalent to the wages arising from tort, but only if it is recognized that the relevant teacher is reappointed as a result of the review, such liability for damages can be affirmed.
However, as seen earlier, as long as the criteria for review that served as the basis for refusal of reappointment of this case are lawful and the refusal of reappointment of this case is deemed lawful, it is difficult for the plaintiffs to be reappointed even if the defendant re-appointed the plaintiffs. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, even if the defendant did not perform the duty of review of reappointment after the decision of review of appeal became final and conclusive, the defendant cannot be held liable for damages arising therefrom.
Ultimately, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal purporting that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the binding force of the review and decision of the appeal review committee, which affected the conclusion of the judgment regarding property liability.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, all appeals are 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 Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)