Appeals Review Committee for Teachers

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the cost of participation.

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was appointed as an associate professor at a graduate school specializing in ○○○○○ Technology Management on September 1, 2012, and the term of appointment expired on August 31, 2015. The criteria for the judgment of the Plaintiff’s reappointment are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors to submit a teaching evaluation table, etc. for review of reappointment, and the Intervenor submitted the pertinent data to the Plaintiff on June 2, 2015.

C. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) held a teachers’ personnel committee to review the re-election of the Intervenor; (b) on the same day, in the ○○○○○○ Office, the Intervenor was prohibited from re-appointing the Intervenor at the said teachers’ personnel committee; and (c) the reason was that the Intervenor did not meet the first requirement for the evaluation of the teachers’ services for re-appointed; and (d) notified the Intervenor that he/she could file an objection to the results of the examination by the teachers’ personnel committee as above. In addition, on July 8, 2015, the principal office submitted evidentiary materials to the Intervenor; and (c) sent the Intervenor’s written opinion of examination of the graduate school of the teachers’ personnel committee under Article 36(2) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teachers.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

D. After that, the Plaintiff made a final decision on September 7, 2015 that the Intervenor will not be reappointed (hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal disposition of reappointment”) upon the Intervenor’s filing of the Intervenor’s objection and the submission of explanatory materials (hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal disposition of reappointment”). At the time, the written notice of refusal to re-appoint that the Plaintiff sent to the Intervenor is indicated as “the grounds for refusal are as follows: (i) the first ground for refusal is the criteria for re-appointing (peach point of the written

E. On September 24, 2015, the intervenor dissatisfied with the disposition of refusal to re-appoint the instant case, filed an appeal with the Defendant on September 24, 2015, and the Defendant rendered a decision revoking the disposition of refusal to re-appoint the instant case on the grounds under the following (1) through (3

1. ① The instant refusal disposition was in violation of the procedure under Article 53-2(6) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 13936, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same) that provided that an intervenor was notified two months prior to the expiration of the appointment period upon notification to the intervenor on September 7, 2015.

② The grounds for refusing the reappointment of the instant case are not specific in terms of the criteria for disposition or disposition under Article 36(2) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teachers.

③ The Plaintiff’s lack of publication points in the thesis subject to examination of the petition does not constitute a ground for refusal to hold office in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 19, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the examination of the petition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

First, since the plaintiff's rejection disposition of this case was taken to additionally submit explanatory materials for the intervenor even after the deadline for notification under Article 53-2 (6) of the former Private School Act, it is unreasonable to view that there is a defect in the procedure for the rejection disposition of re-election of this case.

Second, the intervenor was excluded from the review of reappointment because he did not satisfy the pre-assessment criteria (publication points) set forth in Article 36(1) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Faculty Members, and the plaintiff was provided sufficient opportunity to vindicate when notifying the intervenor of the above facts, but the defendant omitted the decision on the appeal review of this case on the erroneous premise that this part is not included in the grounds for refusal of reappointment, so the decision on the appeal review of this case should be revoked.

(b) Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related Acts and subordinate statutes are as follows.

(c) the board;

1) Whether Article 53-2(6) of the former Private School Act is violated

Article 53-2 (6) of the former Private School Act provides that a teacher shall be notified of the rejection of reappointment to the relevant teacher not later than two months prior to the expiration of the term of appointment. This is intended to protect a substitute for the examination of reappointment so that the relevant teacher may be dismissed from reappointment with sufficient time and find a job for the next time. However, according to the above circumstances, the plaintiff notified the intervenor of the rejection disposition of reappointment after August 31, 2015 when the period of appointment of the intervenor expires. As above, the plaintiff's rejection disposition of reappointment to the intervenor is delayed since August 31, 2015. This part of the plaintiff's appeal of this case is without merit because the plaintiff did not proceed with the examination procedure for reappointment to the intervenor, and the plaintiff's appeal of this case is without merit. This part of this case's appeal of this case's rejection disposition of this case's appeal of this case's 6th of May 19, 2015.

2) Whether the pre-assessment criteria fall short of the pre-assessment criteria is included in the grounds for refusal to re-appoint the instant case

Article 53-2 (6) of the former Private School Act provides that a notice of rejection of reappointment shall be given to the relevant teacher, stating the reasons for rejection of reappointment, with the exception of arbitrary decisions by the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss the relevant teacher, and that the relevant teacher can properly cope with the subsequent procedures for remedy. However, according to the above circumstances, the requirements for reappointment prescribed in Article 36 of the Plaintiff’s Personnel Management Regulations include the quantitative evaluation criteria under paragraph (1) and the criteria for fixedness evaluation under paragraph (2). The deliberation point of the written opinion of reappointment falls under the items of fixedness evaluation among them. The notice sent to the Intervenor on June 30, 2015 or the written notice sent by the Plaintiff to the Intervenor on September 7, 2015 is that all the written notice sent to the Intervenor on September 7, 2015, stating that the grounds for rejection of reappointment are stated as “the grounds for rejection of reappointment” and that the Intervenor did not have any further burden on the Intervenor’s defense right to the Intervenor in this case.

Although the plaintiff asserted that the intervenor was fully aware of the grounds for refusing the reappointment of this case, the plaintiff did not appear to have a problem in the paper submitted by the intervenor for the achievement evaluation because the intervenor found the principal of the graduate school to which he belongs individually, even if based on the statement of Gap No. 13 and No. 14, and the plaintiff was found to have retired from the position of the principal of the principal of the principal of the principal of the principal of the principal, without any problem in the above paper and without satisfying the criteria for the evaluation of legitimacy. Accordingly, each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff clearly presented the grounds for refusing the reappointment of this case.

Therefore, without any further review, the Plaintiff’s argument as to whether the Intervenor’s thesis satisfies the criteria for the relevant provisions is without merit (the Plaintiff should supplement the procedural defects as seen earlier and proceed again to the procedure for the examination for reappointment of a witness and make a decision thereon accordingly. See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da65249, Sept. 8, 201).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-Un

Judges Kim Tae-won

▣ 구 사립학교법 ( 2016 . 2 . 3 . 법률 제13936호로 개정되기 전의 것 )

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

(1) Teachers of various levels of schools shall be appointed or dismissed by the relevant school juristic person or private school manager, and they shall be subject to any of the following subparagraphs:

(2) A college educational institution’s right to appoint or dismiss school teachers may be delegated to the head of the school under the conditions as prescribed by the articles of association of the

(3) A teacher of a college educational institution may be appointed by determining terms and conditions of a contract, such as period of service, salary, conditions of employment, achievements, performance agreements, etc. In such cases, relevant regulations applicable to the faculty of the State and the public university shall apply mutatis mutandis to the period of service.

(4) A person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss a teacher appointed under paragraph (3) shall make an application for deliberation on the expiration of the term of appointment not later than four months prior to the expiration of the term of appointment between the term of appointment and the term of appointment to the teacher concerned (referring to the notice in writing; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article).

(5) Where a teacher who is notified pursuant to paragraph (4) intends to be reappointed, he/she shall apply for deliberation on reappointment to the person entitled to appoint and dismiss within 15 days from the date of receipt of notification

(6) Upon receipt of an application for deliberation on reappointment under paragraph (5), the person who is entitled to appoint and dismiss shall determine whether to re-appoint the relevant teacher after deliberation on the reappointment by the teachers' personnel committee under the provisions of Article 53-3, and notify the relevant teacher of such fact two months prior to the expiration date of the term of appointment. In this case, when the relevant teacher is decided not to re-appoint, he/she shall clearly notify his/

(7) In deliberating on whether the teachers' personnel committee is reappointed under the provisions of paragraph (6), it shall be based on objective grounds determined by school regulations, such as evaluation of the matters in the following subparagraphs. In such cases, the teachers concerned shall be given an opportunity to attend the teachers' personnel committee on the designated date and state their opinions or present their opinions in writing, within a fixed period of not less than 15 days:

1. Matters concerning the education of students;

2. Matters concerning academic research;

3. Matters relating to the guidance of students.

(8) The teachers who are dissatisfied with the disposition of refusal to re-election may file an appeal for review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers under Article 7 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status within 30 days after they become aware of such disposition. The last day of the appeal.