Gwangju OOOOOOO2 apartment **

Law Firm 21st century General Law Office

Attorney Seo-il, Attorneys Seo-young, Kim Jong-chul, and Mau-young

The representative of law, Kim Jong-Gyeong

Attorney Gyeong-woo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Yong-hoon and Kim Yong-sik

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 is assessed against the Plaintiff, 1/3 is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On November 21, 2005, the Plaintiff submitted a doctorate program document, etc. received from ○○ University, a national university (hereinafter “○○ University”) located in the Guam of the United States, and applied for the appointment of professor. On March 1, 2006, the Plaintiff appointed the Plaintiff as a music education instructor and a full-time lecturer.

B. Around April 13, 2007, the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office filed a public prosecution on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff’s doctor’s degree obtained from the ○ University was suspected to be fake; (b) around that time, the Plaintiff started an investigation on August 3, 2007; and (c) on August 3, 2007, the Plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer at the ○○ University recognized as a regular academic background, and thereby interfering with business and doing harm to the execution of fraudulent and public duties; and (d) on August 17, 2007, the ○○ University released the Plaintiff’s position on the grounds that the Plaintiff was indicted as above.

C. However, on January 31, 2008, the Gwangju District Court rendered a judgment of innocence at the first instance court on the ground that the Plaintiff was not guilty on the ground that “○ University was a school authorized by the State government even if it did not obtain certification from the certification institution, and the Plaintiff was not a false doctor’s degree so long as ○ University obtained a doctor’s degree from ○○ University,” and the Prosecutor appealed at the appellate court, but dismissed the appeal to the same effect as on June 18, 2008 at the appellate court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5730 Decided October 23, 2008, and the judgment of acquittal against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive.

D. Meanwhile, on March 1, 2008, 2008, 00000 Gao, which is the time of the Plaintiff’s reappointment, held a personnel committee and held on February 4, 2008, which is the time of the Plaintiff’s reappointment, and reserved the removal from position or re-contract. However, upon the expiration of the contract term of the former instructor, the contract term of the former instructor is terminated, and the final and conclusive judgment of not guilty as a result of the final judgment becomes final and conclusive, the contract shall be dismissed and the defendant shall be dismissed. However, even if the verdict of innocence is final and conclusive, the conditional reappointment was decided with the content that “it may be promoted to a higher class in the future with a university designated as a regular academic background by obtaining a doctorate”.

E. On February 18, 2008, the president of the ○○ School president sent a written contract for reappointment to the Plaintiff, along with a written notification stating that he/she will be reappointed under the above conditions. On February 18, 2008, the Plaintiff submitted the written contract to the ○○ School president with a private person to the effect that he/she consented thereto. Since 65% of the professors oppose the Plaintiff’s reappointment, the president of the ○ School president reversed the above decision and issued a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s reappointment on February 29, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal disposition rejecting the reappointment”), and the Plaintiff was notified on March 3, 2008.

F. On March 25, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Appeal Committee for Teachers (hereinafter referred to as the "Appeal Committee for Teachers") for the revocation of the disposition of rejection of re-election of this case. The Appeal Committee decided to revoke the disposition of rejection of re-election of this case on June 9, 2008 on the ground that the disposition of rejection of re-election of this case, which was made for the same reasons and reasons as the above, violates the good faith principle, and is illegal to deviate from and abuse the discretion of the appointing authority.

G. On June 24, 2008, ○○ Branch notified the decision of the appeals review committee as above, but it did not immediately be reappointed in the process of seeking legal advice on the time and procedure since the judgment of innocence was not yet finalized, and held a personnel committee on August 27, 2008, which held on March 1, 2008 and held as a condition of not guilty of the plaintiff, and subsequently re-appointed retroactively as of March 1, 2008, on condition of the judgment of not guilty. However, it was decided after examining whether there was a defect in the first appointment, and then after deciding whether to cancel or withdraw the appointment, and regardless of this, the plaintiff may obtain a doctorate degree from the university where the regular academic background is recognized, but the plaintiff rejected it on the ground that the condition that the condition was less unfavorable than the conditional decision of appointment as of February 4, 2008.

H. When the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered prior to October 23, 2008, which became final and conclusive by the judgment of the Supreme Court, the ○○ School had the following day revoked the dismissal from position retroactively and included the period for which the removal from position was removed retroactively, and paid all the benefits therefrom.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-5, Gap evidence 7-13, Gap evidence 19, Eul evidence 4-10, Eul evidence 12-14 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The president of ○○ School or a member of the personnel committee, who is a public educational official, has refused to re-appoint the plaintiff intentionally or negligently in performing the duty of deliberation and decision on the reappointment of the plaintiff, and the revocation disposition has to be made two months after the revocation of the disposition of refusal to re-appoint the plaintiff without immediately following the revocation disposition of this case from the Appellate Tribunal constitutes an illegal act and thus meets the requirements for State liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, and the respondent is obligated to compensate for consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

B. Defendant’s assertion

In addition, it does not constitute a tort if the head of ○○ School or a member of the personnel committee rendered the disposition of refusal to re-appoint the Plaintiff, and subsequently implemented the decision of revocation of the appeal review committee late, and as a result, the Plaintiff’s property damages are fully recovered by paying the Plaintiff retroactively at the time of reinstatement of the Plaintiff immediately after the Supreme Court’s decision was rendered, and by re-assessment of the salary class, it cannot be claimed separately from the property damages.

3. Determination

A. Whether consolation money is established against the disposition of refusal to re-election of this case

(1) A teacher of a national or public university who has been appointed as a fixed-term teacher and whose term of appointment has expired has the right to apply for a fair review of reappointment based on reasonable standards regarding his/her ability and qualities as a teacher (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Du7735, Apr. 22, 2004). If a teacher of a national or public university, who would have been reappointed if he/she had undergone a lawful review of reappointment, was unlawfully rejected by the appointing authority who is a public educational official, he/she shall be held liable for damages under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act as a tort.

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) Criteria for examination of the reappointment system and reappointment of university faculty members

(i) Educational Officials Act

Article 11-3 (4) of the Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 889, Mar. 14, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Public Educational Officials Act") shall determine whether to be reappointed to the relevant teacher after deliberation by the university personnel committee, and notify the relevant teacher of the fact not later than two days prior to the expiration of the term of appointment. In this case, when the relevant teacher is decided not to be reappointed, he/she shall notify the relevant teacher of his/her intention not to be reappointed and the grounds not to refuse the reappointment." Paragraph (5) of the same Article shall apply to the deliberation by the university personnel committee on whether the relevant teacher is reappointed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (4). In this case, it shall be based on objective grounds as determined by school regulations, such as ① matters concerning student education, ② matters concerning academic research, ③ evaluation of matters concerning student guidance, etc.

2) Provisions on appointment of full-time faculty members ○○○;

Article 9 (2) of the above provision provides that "the subject of re-contract shall meet the standards for the evaluation of faculty members under Article 21 of the above provision," Article 9 (3) provides that "where the personnel committee deems that the subject of re-contract has satisfied the standards for the appointment of the relevant position as a result of the examination, it shall give the relevant teacher an opportunity to vindicate his/her terms of contract," and Paragraph (4) provides that "the president shall notify the relevant person of whether the contract is re-contract in writing at least two months before the end of the period of non-standing," and Article 21 (Evaluation of Teaching Status) provides that "the evaluation of faculty members in the re-contract, etc. for full-time faculty members shall be based on the following guidelines: (1) The research achievement shall be appraised as follows: (2) The results of the evaluation of faculty members for each class of office for the appointment of full-time faculty members shall be at least the average point B (90 points) for each class of service; and (5) The results of the evaluation of faculty members and other academic studies shall be evaluated as they shall be evaluated within five percent.

(B) Process for examining the reappointment of the Plaintiff

1) In the result of the faculty evaluation in 2007, the Plaintiff obtained a full score in the field of education, service, and research and received A grade. Among them, the Plaintiff obtained 480% more than that of 200%, which is the standard values, and the results of the research were excellent and higher than the average results of the lectures.

2) As seen earlier on February 4, 2008, the personnel committee and the president of the OCO, who deliberated on whether the Plaintiff is reappointed, decided that the Plaintiff would be reappointed on a conditional basis on the ground that the Plaintiff’s qualification as professor, the student guidance and research achievements for two years, and the student instruction and research outcomes were excellent as a result of the student’s teaching evaluation of lectures.

3) However, on February 29, 2008, the president of the ○○ School, etc., held after the above decision of reappointment, opposed to the Plaintiff’s reappointment, the president reversed the above decision on the grounds that 65% of the professors object to the Plaintiff’s reappointment, such as objection to the professors, the student’ rejection, and the school’s honorary demonstration due to controversy over fake degrees, and rejected the Plaintiff’s re-employment on February 29, 200

4) In the course of rendering the instant disposition of refusal to re-election, the president of ○○ School was unable to comply with the procedures for the vindication or notification of teachers to be excluded from reappointment as stipulated in the former Public Educational Officials Act and the former Regulations on the Appointment of Teaching Staff, and the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that his reappointment was rejected only when he did not have any opportunity to explain and that his reappointment was rejected on March 3, 2008, when he did not have any opportunity to explain.

5) The Plaintiff was unable to serve as a teaching staff member near 8 months until his/her reinstatement on October 24, 2008 due to the instant disposition of refusal to re-appointing his/her position, and was not employed by other universities.

(3) Determination

(A) Establishment of tort

According to the above facts of recognition, the president of ○○ School held that the president of ○○ School decided whether to be reappointed to the plaintiff through a legitimate review and procedure for reappointment, but in violation of this decision, he refused the re-employment of this case on the sole basis of arbitrary criteria (i.e., "professing against professors" and "profesing the honor of schools". This constitutes an illegal disposition that deviates from or abused the scope of discretionary power and thus has lost objective legitimacy under the social norms. Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered infringement of the legal interests and interests of the plaintiff by impairing honor, such as he is recognized as a professor at a university or college as a matter of social society together with the professor's office. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the above materials about mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff (the defendant was fully compensated for the plaintiff's property damage after all, and thus, it is not necessary to pay consolation money separately. However, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for the plaintiff's mental suffering due to a tort regardless of prior to property damage, and thus the defendant's above argument is not accepted).

(B) Amount of consolation money

The above facts revealed in the facts of recognition, such as the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff's age, social status, property, and level of education, the circumstance leading to the rejection disposition of the re-employment of this case, the reasons for such rejection, and the degree of mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff while staying in office for not more than eight months since the rejection disposition of this case. On the other hand, when the verdict of innocence against the plaintiff became final and conclusive, considering all the circumstances shown in the argument in this case, such as the situation where the plaintiff immediately returned the plaintiff to ○○ school and the payment of retroactive wages, etc., it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money for mental suffering caused by the rejection disposition of this case as KRW 10,00,000.

(b) Whether the consolation money for delay in the performance of the decision on revocation of petition review is established

On the other hand, apart from the disposition of rejection of re-election of this case, the plaintiff sought for the payment of consolation money as well as for the delayed portion of the decision to revoke the appeal review of this case for not less than two months. However, according to the above facts of recognition, it was delayed in the process of seeking legal advice on the re-employment of the plaintiff without immediately following the decision of the appeal review committee for not less than two months, and the delay in the payment of consolation money for not less than two months has been delayed in the process of seeking legal advice on the re-employment of the plaintiff in a situation where the judgment of not guilty against the plaintiff has not yet become final and conclusive. This act cannot be deemed as a tort which has considerably lost the nature of another party in violation of the objective duty of care, and even if there is room for establishing tort against the interpreter, it shall not be deemed that a new loss has been caused separately from the loss caused by the disposition of rejection

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, pursuant to Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the consolation money of 10,000,000 won due to the disposition of rejection of re-employment of this case and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from March 1, 2008 to September 10, 2008, which is the date of service of the application for change of claim and cause of claim from September 10, 2008, and from September 10, 2008, the date of service of the application for change of claim and cause of claim from September 10, 2008, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.