Busan Southern-gu

2. ○○○

Busan Seo-gu

3. Kim○-○

Busan Jin-gu

4. Fixed00

Busan Shipping Daegu

5. Maternity00

Busan Southern-gu

6. Table ○○; and

Busan Shipping Daegu

7. Prostitution○○;

Busan Seo-gu

8. Mo○○.

Kimhae-si Kim Jong-si

9. ○○○

Busan Southern-gu

10. Kim○-○

Busan So-gu

11. Kim○-○

Busan Geum-gu

12. Kim○-○

Busan Jin-gu

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Lee Jung-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Busan Southern-gu

Representative Lee ○○

Attorney Seo-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On December 30, 201, the Defendant at the office confirms that each cancellation of appointment against the Plaintiffs on December 30, 2011 is null and void.

A. On March 1, 2008, the Defendant’s 000 high schools, 00 ○○○○○○ 2, 00 ○○○○○ 1, 100 , 20 , 10 , 20 , 20 , 20 , 20 , 20 , 30 , 20 , 20 , 20 , 20 , 10 , 7 , 20 , 20 , 7 , 10 , 7 , 20 , 7 , 201 , 10 , 7 , 10 , 20 , 7 , 10 , 20 , 10 , 30 , 20 , 10 ,20 , 10 , 20 , 301 , 201.

D. After that, on June 20, 2011, following a resolution of the teachers’ disciplinary committee, the Defendant corporation took each of the two-months of salary reduction against the Plaintiff ○○○, ○○○, and Kim○, respectively, for one month of suspension from office, Plaintiff Hu○, ○○, ○○, Kim○, ○○, and ○○, and Lee, respectively.

E. On July 21, 201, the Superintendent of the Busan Metropolitan Office of Education again notified the Defendant corporation that the appointment would be revoked or passed by the Plaintiffs, and that the payment would be suspended from August 201.

F. Accordingly, on July 27, 2011, the OOO high school teachers' personnel committee was deliberated on July 28, 201, and on July 28, 201, the OOOO high school teachers' personnel committee was proposed to the board of directors.

G. In addition, on the same day after the resolution of the board of directors on December 30, 201, the Defendant corporation filed a request for revocation of the appointment cancellation with the Appeal Committee on the ground that the Plaintiffs violated the provisions of Article 53-2(9) of the Private School Act and Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2011 public notice of the examination for appointment of new teachers, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “public notice of appointment examination in this case”), and notified the Plaintiffs of the result of each disposition on the same day. (h) The Plaintiffs filed a request for revocation of the appointment cancellation with the Appeal Committee on January 18, 2012, but on April 17, 2012, the Appeal Committee dismissed the Plaintiffs’ request on the ground that the Defendant’s revocation of appointment against the Plaintiffs was lawful.

I. By December 30, 2011, the Plaintiffs served as teachers at ○○, Middle and High Schools, 000 high schools, etc. affiliated with Defendant corporations, respectively, by December 30, 201, on which the date of revocation of appointment was stamped.

(j)The provisions pertaining to this case shall be as follows:

○ The qualifications of private school teachers under Article 52 (Qualification) of the Private School Act shall be governed by the provisions concerning the qualifications of national and public school teachers.

Article 53-2 (Appointment and Dismissal of Teachers Other Than Heads of Schools)

(9) The new appointment of high school or lower-level school teachers shall be made through the open screening, and the qualification requirements for performing the duties and matters necessary for conducting the open screening shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Article 21 (New Employment of Teachers)

(1) An open screening process under Article 53-2 (9) of the Act shall be conducted by a person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss teachers under paragraph (1) of the same Article. In such cases, the person authorized to appoint and dismiss may entrust the screening to the superintendent of education where

(2) Article 11-3 of the Decree on Appointment of Public Educational Officials shall apply mutatis mutandis to qualifications for applying for an open screening process under paragraph (1).

(3) Where a person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss a new teacher intends to employ a teacher, he/she shall publicly announce matters concerning the number of employees in the employment field, eligibility for support, etc. through daily newspapers or Internet or other information and communications media 30 days prior to

(4) The open screening under paragraph (1) shall be conducted by means of a written examination, practical examination, and interview, and other matters necessary for implementing the open screening shall be determined by the person who has authority to appoint and dismiss after deliberation by the

Article 10 of the Public Educational Officials Act (Principles of Appointment)

(1) Public educational officials shall be appointed according to their qualifications, results of retraining, performance, and other capabilities that have been actually proven.

(2) In appointing public educational officials, equal opportunities for appointment shall be guaranteed to those who are qualified as teachers and desire to be appointed, based on their capabilities.

Article 11 (New Employment, etc. of Teachers)

(1) Teachers shall be newly appointed through an open screening process. In such cases, the appointment authority may award applicants falling under attached Table 2 additional points by up to 10/100 of the full marks of the primary examination.

(3) With regard to an open screening process under paragraphs (1) and (2), age limits and other qualification requirements for performing relevant duties, and other matters required for conducting an open screening process, such as the procedure, method and evaluation elements thereof, shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

A person who can apply for an open screening process pursuant to Article 11-3 (Qualification for Examination) of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials pursuant to Article 11 (1) of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials shall have obtained a teacher qualification corresponding to the position to be employed (in the case of secondary school teachers, referring to a teacher qualification certificate stating the subject of indication corresponding to the position to be employed) (including an expected graduate or a person who has completed the prescribed course at a school or teachers' training institution and has completed the required course

Article 11-4 (Measures against Cheaters)

(1) A person who has performed an illegal act in an examination for appointment as a public educational official shall be suspended or invalidated, and he shall not apply for an examination under this Decree for two years from the date of relevant disposition.

(2) Any person who has committed any unlawful act with respect to an examination for appointment of a national or local public official under other Acts and subordinate statutes, and for whom the qualification for applying for relevant examination is suspended, shall not apply during such period.

○ Main contents of the notice of the appointment examination of Defendant Corporation

1) Screening method

The appointment examination is divided into two stages: ○ middle school, ○○ high school, OO○ high school, Do middle school, Korean language, English, academic studies, general society, sports, physical information computer, health, etc. which is part of the defendant corporation. The appointment examination is divided into two stages: ○ middle school, ○○ high school, OO○ high school, Do middle school, Do middle school, Korean language, English, social studies, physical information, and health.

2) Selection of successful examinees

A successful applicant in the first examination shall be determined in the order of the highest score within six times the number of selected candidates, and if the number of successful candidates exceeds six times the number of successful candidates, all of the successful candidates shall conduct a practical examination and interview. The final successful applicant shall be determined in the order of the highest score in the sum of the results of the first examination and the results of the second examination.

(iii) qualifications and restrictions thereon;

(a) Qualifications for applying secondary school teachers: A person who has a health teacher's license as a secondary school teacher or higher in selection subjects or higher in teaching subjects: a health teacher's license holder;

B) Restriction on application

(1) A person who falls under any subparagraph of Article 33 of the State Public Officials Act.

(2) A person falling under Article 11-4 (1) or (2) of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials.

(3) A person whose appointment is disqualified under other related Acts and subordinate statutes.

(iv)final revocation of passing;

(A)any person who falls under the grounds for restrictions on eligibility and who is disqualified for appointment;

B) Even after a final successful candidate is announced, if it is confirmed differently from the fact by forgery, alteration, etc. of submitted documents, the result of such determination, such as passing and cancellation of appointment, shall be subject to the decision of the board of directors of the school foundation

5) When an applicant for a disciplinary action against a Cheating committed an unlawful act in the present test, the suspension of this test shall be invalidated.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 3 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), 6, 12, Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole entries and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Whether the cancellation of appointment is null and void due to an error in the procedure

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the revocation of appointment of the instant case is null and void, since the Defendant corporation did not undergo the above procedure in cancelling the appointment of a teacher in the case of dismissing or punishing a private school teacher under Articles 58(2), 61, and 62 of the Private School Act.

Although the contract for the appointment of a private school teacher is made according to the procedure prescribed in the Private School Act, if the legal nature of the contract is not different from the contract for employment under private law, and if there is a reason to nullify or revoke the declaration of intention of the parties to the contract for the conclusion of the contract, the other party may, as a matter of course, assert the invalidity or revocation of the contract for the conclusion of the contract for the appointment, and deny or extinguish the legal effect accordingly, the cancellation of the contract for the appointment of a private school teacher is ultimately a cancellation of the contract for employment under private law. The cancellation of the contract for the appointment of a private school teacher is merely a cancellation of the contract for employment under private law. Since the cancellation of the contract for the appointment has the nature of disciplinary action or disciplinary action, it cannot be deemed that the contract for the appointment has the nature of the disciplinary action or disciplinary action, and it cannot be deemed that it must undergo the prescribed disciplinary procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da55425,

B. The plaintiffs' act constitutes grounds for revocation of the appointment contract of this case, and the appointment contract of this case can be revoked on the grounds of defects in their expression of intent as a private employment contract, but it cannot be deemed that there was any error in the appointment of the plaintiffs, or that the plaintiffs deception or coercion the defendant corporation, and therefore, the contract of this case does not have any statutory grounds for revocation of appointment without any justifiable grounds for revocation.

The legal nature of the contract for appointment of a private school teacher is like the plaintiffs' assertion that there exists statutory grounds for cancellation, such as mistake, deception, and coercion. However, if the contract is conditional, the validity of the contract can be determined depending on the fulfillment of the conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da15479, Aug. 26, 1994). However, as the notice of appointment contains "Cheating provided for in Article 11-4 (1) and (2) of the Decree on the Appointment of Education as grounds for restriction on application in the above, if the applicants committed unlawful acts in this examination, it can be seen that the plaintiffs' act constitutes a violation of the above regulations on the appointment of a private school teacher under the condition that they would be revoked ex post facto, for the reasons that they would not have any grounds for cancellation of appointment. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs' act constitutes a violation of the above regulations on the appointment of a new school teacher under the premise that they would be revoked.

Article 10 (1) of the Public Educational Officials Act provides that the appointment of a public educational official shall be based on his/her qualification, results of retraining, performance, and other capabilities, and that the appointment of a public educational official shall be guaranteed equal opportunity for appointment based on his/her ability to be a teacher. Article 11 (3) of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Educational Officials provides that a person who is able to apply for an open screening process under Article 11 (1) of the above Act and who has obtained a certain teacher’s license or who is able to obtain a teacher’s license or who is expected to complete the examination shall be qualified as a teacher.

Meanwhile, Article 52 of the Private School Act provides that the qualifications of private school teachers shall be governed by the provisions on the qualifications of national and public school teachers, while Article 53-2 (9) of the same Act provides that new appointment of high school teachers of various levels of schools below high school under Article 53-2 (9) shall be made through the open screening, and the qualifications required for performing the duties and matters necessary for conducting the open screening shall be determined by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 21(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act provides that Article 11-3 of the Decree on the Appointment of Education shall apply mutatis mutandis to the qualifications required for applying for the open screening. In full view of the provisions of the above statutes, the qualifications and appointment of private school teachers shall require strict and fairness

Meanwhile, "Cheating", one of the reasons for passing and cancelling appointment, refers to all those who committed all fraudulent acts relating to the examination which harms or is likely to harm the fairness of the first examination. Thus, even if such fraudulent acts did not affect the passing of the examination, it becomes the reason for revoking the passing of the examination (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3284, Dec. 24, 1991). Further, even if the applicants' passing of the examination are not only one's own illegal acts but also those of the applicants' passing of the examination on behalf of others (see Supreme Court Decision 71Nu180, Jan. 31, 1972). Further, even if the applicants' passing of the examination on behalf of others closely related to the applicants, it is reasonable to view that the applicants' passing of the examination could not be evaluated as the applicants' passing of the examination as the applicants' passing of the examination on behalf of others, and that the applicants' passing of the examination could not be evaluated as being the applicants' passing of the examination on behalf of others.

(d) Whether there are grounds for ratification or statutory prosecution or not.

The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that even if the defendant corporation can cancel the appointment contract of this case, the defendant corporation's work as a teacher at each school affiliated with the defendant corporation for a period of four years constitutes "all or part of "performance" as one of the grounds for ratification or statutory prosecution. Accordingly, the defendant corporation cannot cancel the appointment contract of this case.

Ratification takes effect only when a person who has the right of rescission expresses his/her intention of ratification with the knowledge that it is an act that can be cancelled after the cause for cancellation ceases to exist, or when it performs an act that falls under the cause for statutory ratification (Supreme Court Decision 97Da578 delivered on May 30, 1997).

The facts that the plaintiffs worked as teachers at ○○ Middle School or O000 high schools under the jurisdiction of the defendant corporation until December 30, 201 with the seal of cancellation of appointment are as above. However, as seen earlier, the defendant corporation held the Busan Metropolitan City Office of Education on June 28, 201 and reported the plaintiffs' improper acts to directors on June 21, 201, and then dismissed the plaintiffs. Since the Busan District Court 2010 Ga1476, 2010 Ga21262 decided that the above dismissal disposition was invalid due to procedural defects without the consent of the disciplinary committee under the Private School Act, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs' improper acts were revoked by the defendant corporation's appointment of the plaintiffs on the grounds that the above dismissal disposition was not legitimate until the cancellation of appointment of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' above dismissal disposition was made on December 30, 2012 as well as on the grounds that it was found that there were no other factors such as cancellation of appointment of the plaintiffs.

E. The plaintiffs, whether the exclusion period of the right to revoke in the instant appointment contract has expired, once again, shall exercise the right to revoke the Defendant corporation within three years from the date of ratification and within ten years from the time of legal act. Since the cancellation of appointment against the plaintiffs was made after three years from March 1, 2008, when the cancellation period of the right to revoke expires, the plaintiffs asserted that the cancellation of appointment made after the lapse of the exclusion period of the right to revoke is null and void.

However, as seen earlier, the cancellation of the appointment of this case has the substance of exercising the right of rescission of the contract, which the Defendant corporation reserved through the public notice of appointment, and it is difficult to view that the limitation period claimed by the Plaintiffs should be applied.

Even if the exclusion period as alleged by the plaintiffs is applicable to the cancellation of appointment of Defendant Corporation, the former part of Article 146 of the Civil Act provides that "the right of cancellation shall be exercised within three years from the date on which it can be ratified," while Article 144 (1) of the Civil Act provides that "the date on which it can be inferred as the starting date of the exclusion period of the right of cancellation" under the former part of Article 146 of the Civil Act provides that "the date on which it can be inferred as the starting date of the exclusion period of the right of cancellation shall be the starting date of the right of cancellation" under the former part of Article 146 of the Civil Act shall be deemed as "the date on which the right of cancellation can be inferred" under the ground that there is no obstacle to the exercise of the right of cancellation, and therefore the person with the right of cancellation can be confirmed and cancelled shall be deemed as belonging to the time when the former part of the defendant corporation, who was the chief executive officer of the defendant corporation, actively participated in the plaintiffs' unlawful acts, as alleged by the plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety for lack of reasonable grounds.

Judges Shin Jae-ju

Judges Park Chang-hee