1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below dismissed the plaintiffs, who are teachers of the High School under its control, on April 19, 190 with the consent of the teachers' disciplinary committee established in the defendant corporation on April 27, 1990. The plaintiffs sought the cancellation of such dismissal disposition, and pursuant to Article 62 (2) of the Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of April 7, 1990; hereinafter referred to as the "Mont Act"), which was enforced at the time of such dismissal disposition, the teachers' disciplinary committee shall be composed of not less than five but not more than nine members, and the defendant corporation constitutes three of the seven of the members of the High School under its control, who are teachers of the Incheon High School established in the defendant corporation on the basis of the above Act before the above amendment, and it can be interpreted that there was no significant error in the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act as to the dismissal disposition of the plaintiffs in question.

(3) If the purport of Article 62 (1) of the Act is to prevent any disciplinary action against the school juristic person which is wholly established by the former Enforcement Decree of the Act, and the school juristic person which is the manager of the school, shall be established according to the classification of the persons who are entitled to appoint and dismiss the school, and the disciplinary action against the school juristic person which is the manager of the school, shall not be taken more than five but more than nine members; if the school juristic person is to be disciplined by the former Enforcement Decree of the Act, the number of directors of the school shall not exceed one half of its members; and if the school juristic person is to be disciplined by the former Enforcement Decree of the Act, the disciplinary action against the school juristic person which is the manager of the school, other than the latter Enforcement Decree of the Act, shall not be taken into force; and if the school juristic person is to be disciplined by the latter Enforcement Decree of the Act, the disciplinary action against the teachers of the school, other than those of the school juristic person, other than those of the latter.

However, according to the records, notwithstanding the amendment of the law as above, the disciplinary committee which consented to the ex officio dismissal of the plaintiffs of this case, is composed of two directors of the defendant corporation, two teachers of the relevant school of the person to be disciplined, three teachers of the Incheon Foreign Language High School under the defendant corporation, and seven teachers of the Incheon Foreign Language High School under the defendant corporation, based on the law and the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation, and the fact that one teacher of the Incheon Foreign Language High School was present at the disciplinary committee which decided to consent ex officio dismissal of the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the disciplinary committee, which has consented to the disposition of ex officio dismissal by the defendant corporation against the plaintiffs, is composed of a committee in violation of Article 62 (2) of the Act, and even if the disciplinary committee consented to the disposition of ex officio dismissal against the plaintiffs, this does not have any validity as a consent. Therefore, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of dismissal in this case was ultimately made without legitimate consent of the disciplinary committee, but there was a significant defect in the procedure of this consent. However, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 62 (2) of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)