[2] The case rejecting the above disposition on the ground that the above disposition is a discretionary act in a case where a professor whose term of appointment expires claims damages equivalent to the salary against the school juristic person in an arbitrary dispute about the exclusion of the president's reappointment

[2] In light of the fact that the status as a university faculty member is naturally terminated due to the expiration of the term of appointment, and whether a university faculty member whose term of appointment has expired falls under discretionary action according to the determination by the appointing authority, it is difficult to conclude that a school corporation re-appointed a person subject to reappointment even if the result of evaluation in accordance with the rules on the examination criteria for reappointment of university does not fall under the grounds for exclusion from reappointment, and that the same applies to cases where a school corporation has a fact that it has re-appointed all of the remaining persons subject to reappointment, the case rejected a claim for damages equivalent to the amount of wages based on the premise that he/she has been dismissed from reappointment as

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 3

Unless there is any provision that imposes an obligation of re-election on the articles of association or personnel regulations of a private university for a fixed period under Article 53-2 (3) of the Private School Act, a teacher of a private university naturally loses his status due to the expiration of the term of appointment, even if he did not conclude a contract for re-election, so long as he did not undergo special procedures such as rejection of re-election, etc. Accordingly, the subsequent disposition of exclusion from reappointment and notification to the relevant teacher should be confirmed and notified as ipso facto ipso facto ipso facto ipso facto ipso facto ipso facto ipso facto ipso facto ipso facto ipso facto ipso facto ipso facto ipso facto ipso facto, not any legal effect between the relevant teacher and the school juristic person. Accordingly, there is no interest in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da2622, Jun. 9, 1987; 93Da61789, Jul. 29, 1996).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff was appointed as an assistant professor on September 1, 1990 under Article 53-2 (3) of the Private School Act and Article 43 (2) of the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation, and that the defendant corporation's personnel management regulations stipulate that the plaintiff may be reappointed (Article 9) in consideration of the research records during the former tenure period, from among those whose tenure period expires pursuant to the articles of incorporation, and there are no provisions governing the duty of reappointment in the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation, the personnel management regulations, and the rules governing the examination standards for reappointment, and that the results of the evaluation of the entire evaluation table of Article 9 of the standards for the examination of reappointment are less than 15 or more E are not less than 7, the provisions excluding reappointment shall not be deemed to have been erroneous in the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the deliberation of the appointment period of the plaintiff corporation cannot be deemed to have violated the legal principles as to the new appointment status of the plaintiff corporation or the new appointment status of the defendant corporation.

The purpose of guaranteeing the status of private school teachers as stipulated in the Constitution and the Private School Act is to guarantee their status during the period of appointment contract with teachers, and cannot be viewed as the purport of imposing the duty of appointment upon the termination of the appointment contract period. In addition, if the provision on temporary teachers as stipulated in Article 43-2 (2) of the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation is not temporary teachers, it cannot be viewed as a basis for interpreting that teachers retire from office as a matter of course at the expiration of the appointment period, not at the expiration of the appointment period, but at the time of excluding from reappointment. The assertion is without merit.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the records, the court below's decision that the non-party Kim Dong-dong, the president of the defendant corporation, was insufficient to recognize that the non-party Kim Dong-dong assessed the appointment of the plaintiff without any objective evidence is just and acceptable, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. As to ground of appeal No. 1

Unless otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal 2, the legitimacy of the ground of appeal No. 1 does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. In addition, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant corporation re-appointed the plaintiff, even though the result of the evaluation of the evaluation of the plaintiff's appointment does not constitute grounds for exclusion from reappointment under the internal rules, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant corporation re-appointed the plaintiff, 12 persons except the plaintiff. Accordingly, the same purport is that the court below rejected the plaintiff's preliminary claim for damages equivalent to wages that could have been reappointed on the premise that the plaintiff could not have been reappointed on the premise that the plaintiff had been reappointed without objective evidence, and thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for compensation for damages equivalent to wages that the plaintiff could have been reappointed on the ground that the plaintiff had not been reappointed on the ground that the evaluation of the evaluation of the plaintiff did not constitute grounds for exclusion from reappointment under the internal rules. Accordingly, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the facts alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)