The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,481,460 won and the "monthly unpaid remuneration" column in attached Form 1-1 among them, 5% per annum from each corresponding day to December 20, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. All remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

3. 80% of the total litigation cost shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The part concerning the payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

A. We affirm that the Defendant’s refusal to re-appoint the Plaintiff on December 19, 2015 is null and void.

B. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

1) With respect to each amount indicated in the “amount of claim” in the “amount of 51,765,210 won and the “amount of compensation” in the “amount of compensation” in the “amount of 51,765,210 won and the “amount of compensation” in the “amount of compensation for delay” in the same Table, 5% per annum from the corresponding date to the service date of the duplicate of the complaint in this case and 1

2) From February 1, 2016 to the time the procedure for review of reappointment with the Plaintiff is implemented, the amount of money calculated by applying the ratio of “claimed Amount” in the attached Table 4 to the amount of remuneration calculated.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The judgment of the first instance court is amended as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation is dismissed.

This part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the allegations added and supplemented by the plaintiff in the trial, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

○ Additional Judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Even if each research product of this case does not correspond to “other research product as a major book,” it constitutes “data collection as a other major book.” Accordingly, 30 points of each research product of this case should be allocated to each research product of this case.

2) Although the Plaintiff’s employment period up to February 29, 2016, reflecting the Plaintiff’s achievements by August 31, 2015 in the examination for reappointment is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) First, we examine whether each research work of this case constitutes “data collection” as a major book.

Article 9 [Attachment 2-2] of the Defendant’s School Teachers Evaluation Regulations provides that the term “other major books” refers to books related to major, such as letter books and data collection, which are “at least 100 pages written by the author himself/herself.” However, each of the research books of this case is not less than 100 pages of the Plaintiff’s quantity written. As such, each of the research books of this case cannot be seen as data collection as other major books.

2) Next, we examine whether the Defendant reflected the Plaintiff’s research business in the Plaintiff’s examination for reappointment by August 31, 2015.

Article 31(1) of the Defendant’s Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff provides that assistant professors shall deliberate on the case of assistant professors based on their achievements for the last four years which have been examined by the Faculty Members Evaluation Committee. Article 4 of the Defendant’s Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff provides that the Defendant’s evaluation of teachers’ achievements shall be subject to their achievements from September 1 of the immediately preceding year to August 31 of the pertinent year, and that the evaluation of their achievements shall be conducted after the end of each semester. Meanwhile, Article 4(2) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff provides that “The evaluation of teachers’ achievements shall be conducted after the end of each semester: Provided, That if necessary, it may be assessed during each semester.”

According to the above regulations, the examination of reappointment of the plaintiff who is an assistant professor shall be based on the achievements from September 1, 201, to August 31, 2015, which have been completed by the Teachers' Service Evaluation Committee. However, if necessary, it shall be deemed that the subsequent achievements may be evaluated and reflected in the examination of reappointment.

Furthermore, considering whether the Defendant evaluated only the achievements from September 1, 201 to August 31, 2015, the Defendant announced the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff would be relieved of reappointment due to the fact that the Plaintiff would fall short of the research minimum level of reputation as a result of re-examination,” and that the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the Plaintiff would not accept the Plaintiff’s submission of a certificate of confirmation of publication to the Defendant on December 28, 2015, based on the following facts: (a) around December 11, 2015: (b) around December 24, 2015; and (c) around December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was carrying out the work of regularly publishing each of the research products of this case; (d) the Plaintiff’s submission of a certificate of confirmation of publication to the effect that the Plaintiff would submit the certificate of confirmation of publication to the Defendant on December 28, 2015; and (e) the Plaintiff’s submission of a written vindication to the effect that it would be acceptable as the Plaintiff’s submission.

2. As to the claim for remuneration equivalent to the reduced portion in accordance with the Rules on the Allowances of Teachers and Staff amended on March 30, 2012

The reasons for this part of this Court are as follows, except for the cases where the plaintiff and the defendant make a final judgment or adds the security and additional arguments in the trial, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Parts of the garment

The part of "(3)" from the last day of the 13th sentence to the 6th sentence of the first instance judgment shall be described as follows:

(3) As to this, the Defendant asserts that from November 2014 to February 2015, the principal salary and family allowances illegally reduced were fully preserved by paying KRW 2,704,00 per month to the Plaintiff as the research grants.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant paid research grants to the teachers from November 2, 2014 to February 2, 2015, the fact that some of the faculty members whose remuneration has not been reduced are excluded from the payment of research grants, and that some of the faculty members who received research grants are aware that they were paid research grants as a preservation for the reduction of remuneration, but on the other hand, it is recognized that the research grants are paid to the teachers for the promotion of their research, and that the research grants are designated as a research expense for the purpose of which the disbursement is for the promotion of their research, and that the research grants are required to submit theses or the research records of at least one copy.

As can be seen in the above facts, the research grants paid to teachers from November 2014 to February 2, 2015 are not for the purpose of preserving the reduction of remuneration. However, in light of the purpose of spending the research grants and the requirements for payment, etc., the research grants are clearly distinguishable from the wages, which are the remuneration for labor, and thus they cannot be seen as wages. Thus, the Defendant’s payment of the research grants cannot be deemed as having made up for the reduced remuneration. The Defendant’s assertion in this part is rejected.

○ Additional Judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) Since there is a procedural defect in the process of omitting a notice of convening by three professors in the process of amending the Regulations on the Allowances of the Teachers and Staff, the amendment of the Regulations on the Allowances of the Teachers and

2) Even if it is assumed that the Regulations on the Allowances for Teachers and Staff were legally amended, the Defendant reduced the allowances even if the total amount of teachers’ fees does not exceed 32% of the tuition income.

B. Determination

1) First, we examine the procedural defect arguments regarding the amendment of the Regulations on the Allowances of the Teachers and Staff.

A) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence and Eul evidence Nos. 17 through 19, and Eul evidence Nos. 14 through 17, the defendant's school affairs committee deliberated and resolved on March 22, 2012 on the amendment of the Rules for Teachers' Allowances to be paid to the teachers within the scope of not more than 32% of the registration fees revenue. The defendant held a meeting to amend the Rules for Teachers' Allowances to be Paid to the teachers, and notified the former teachers as 77 members at the time of holding a meeting to amend the Rules for Teachers' Allowances to be Paid to the former teachers. On the other hand, the defendant dismissed non-party 1, non-party 2, and non-party 3 professors on June 17, 201 through a resolution to dismiss the teachers' disciplinary committee, and the defendant did not request an appeal review to the above professors, and the defendant did not dismiss the above 3rd professor from office on October 10, 2010.

B) On the other hand, the following circumstances revealed by adding the purport of the entire oral argument, i.e., the full-time teacher subject to the Regulations on Allowances for Teachers and Staff, including the above three professors. At the meeting on March 28, 2012, the above forty-seven members agreed to the amendment of the Regulations on Allowances for Teachers and Staff. ② During the meeting, sufficient explanation was given to the amendment of the Rules on Allowances for Teachers and Staff, and the full-time teacher did not agree to the amendment of the Rules on Allowances for Teachers and Staff by free will (the former 71 members who participated in the voting). According to this, the former 24 members did not agree to the amendment of the Rules on Allowances for Teachers and Staff (the former 71 members who participated in the voting.). ③ At the time, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant did not dispute the decision to revoke the disposition on October 10, 201 to dismiss the former 31 members at the meeting of the Seoul Administrative Court (the Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gu 22528, supra).

2) Next, we examine whether the Defendant’s total amount of teachers’ fees does not exceed 32% of the tuition income, but reduced the allowances.

The evidence of the plaintiff's submission alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant reduced the allowance even though the total amount of the tuition does not exceed 32% of the tuition income. Rather, according to the each statement of the evidence Nos. 43 through 57, the defendant presumed that in order to pay the entire tuition income within 32% of the tuition income, the defendant estimated the reduction ratio of the former teacher's remuneration to pay the full-time teacher's remuneration, and then paid the full-time teacher's remuneration to the full-time teacher through the settlement of accounts when the latter becomes final and conclusive. Accordingly, the defendant tried to pay the full-time teacher's remuneration in accordance with the standards set forth in the Rules on the Remuneration of the Teachers and Staff.

3. As to a claim, etc. for remuneration equivalent to a reduced amount of salary pursuant to the Regulations on the annual salary contract for teachers

(a) Basic facts;

1) On August 30, 201, the Defendant newly established a provision on the remuneration of teachers and the annual salary contract system for teachers and a provision on the annual salary of teachers to which only the “school teachers” apply by amending the provision on August 30, 2011.

2) The remuneration provisions of the annual salary contract system for newly established teachers are as follows.

Article 6 (1) (Remuneration) (1) of the table included in the main sentence shall be divided into salary and allowances. ② The salary shall be determined in accordance with the Regulations on the Remuneration of Teachers, assessed in accordance with the Regulations on the Evaluation of Teachers' Performance, and paid in accordance with the grades determined in accordance with paragraph (4). ③ The allowances shall be determined in accordance with the Regulations on the Allowances for Teachers and Staff: Provided, That the bonus and household expenses shall be assessed in accordance with the Regulations on the Evaluation of Teachers' Performance, and the allowances shall be paid in accordance with the grades determined in paragraph (4). ④ The remuneration shall be determined in accordance with the grade determined in accordance with paragraph (4). ④ The ratio of the remuneration, the salary, the allowances (income and household expenses) and the allowances (income and household expenses) shall be determined in accordance with the following standards. The salary (grade ratio), the allowances (income and household expenses) £« 50% + 140% A20%) + 30% A20% A20% A30% (40%) 10%(50%)

3) Accordingly, on March 2012 and February 2, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the appointment of a teacher for a two-year term with the Defendant, and agreed that ① the allowances (excluding the bonus and household support) shall be based on the Regulations on the Allowances for Teachers and Staff, and ② the salary, bonus, and household support (hereinafter referred to as “linked allowances”) shall be paid monthly remuneration for 12 months as determined under the Regulations on the Contract for the Annual Salaries for Teachers.

4) In accordance with the provision of the above annual salary contract system, the Plaintiff received class A3 from the performance evaluation in 2013 and 2014, and did not change the previous salary and allowance. However, the Plaintiff received class A4 from the performance evaluation in 2015, and 3% was reduced compared to the annual salary in 2014, and 20% was reduced.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 19, Eul evidence 21 through 23, 59, and 59, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments

B. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) Since the Defendant newly established a provision on the annual salary contract system for teachers without obtaining consent from a majority of teachers according to the collective decision-making method, the provision on the annual salary contract for teachers is null and void.

2) Article 15(2) of the Higher Education Act and the Defendant’s articles of incorporation stipulate the results of the recruitment of new students, who are irrelevant to teachers’ duties, as the standards for performance evaluation. Therefore, the said provision is null and void in violation of Article 15(2) of the same Act

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the reduced salary and the allowance to the Plaintiff based on the provision of the annual salary contract for teachers.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the assertion that the provision of the annual salary contract for teachers is null and void without the consent of a majority of teachers

In full view of the respective statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 26 through 29, the defendant held an explanatory meeting on July 7, 201 for the establishment of a new salary contract provision for teachers and a draft of teachers’ remuneration regulations on July 13, 2011 to the teachers on the job of July 13, 2011, and provided guidance for voting as to whether to give consent. In the voting implemented on July 13, 2011, the result of the ballot counting with 77 persons among 79 teachers’ 7 persons as a result of the voting on July 13, 2011 to the 61st (including 1st, 2nd, 11th, 5th, and 5th, and thereafter the consent of a majority of teachers, the defendant is recognized as legitimate in accordance with the procedures for the establishment of new salary contract provision for teachers.

2) Determination as to whether the results of the recruitment of new students unrelated to the teachers' duties and the results of the evaluation of teachers' performance can be used as materials for the evaluation of performance.

A) Facts of recognition

① Article 15(2) of the former Higher Education Act (amended by Act No. 14391, Dec. 20, 2016) provides that “A teacher shall educate, guide, and study students, but, if necessary, may take full charge of education, guidance, academic research, or industry-academic cooperation provided for in subparagraph 5 of Article 2 of the Promotion of Industrial Education and Industry-Academic Cooperation Act, as prescribed by school regulations or the articles of incorporation,” and Article 53-2(3) of the Private School Act provides that “A college teachers of a college educational institution may determine and appoint terms of a contract, such as period of service, salary, working conditions, performance, and performance agreement, as prescribed by the articles of incorporation.”

(2) Article 39(2) of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that teachers shall be appointed and dismissed through a resolution of the board of directors following the deliberation of the personnel committee. In such cases, benefits shall be determined by taking into consideration the degree of difficulty in performing their duties, achievements, achievements, etc., and matters concerning research performance and thesis, career counseling, student guidance, etc.

(3) The details of the defendant's annual salary contract rules (attached Table 1) enacted following a resolution by the board of directors under the above articles of association shall be as follows:

1. Criteria for the evaluation of points included in the main sentence 1. 1. Evaluation of teacher's position 50 A, B, C, D, and E classified into the evaluation under the Regulations on 50th 1.1 teacher's position evaluation (50) and classified the number of individual new students recruited for 10. 2. 1, each of them into Class A, B, C, D, and E, and classified as the number of individual new students recruited for 10. 3. 2, employment performance (10) x 14. 1. Contribution to the development of schools (15) x 5.1 x 5 teacher's position evaluation points under the Regulations on 5th 1. 5th Professor's position evaluation of school's position (5. 5th 6th 10th 15th 6th 1. 15th 6th 1. 15th 1. 15th 15th 1. 15th 10 of the evaluation report.

④ The scope of “1. Faculty member evaluation” in the above [Attachment 1] is assessed according to the Defendant’s provision on the Defendant’s faculty member evaluation. The Defendant’s provision on the Defendant’s faculty member evaluation sets out 300 points for the recruitment of new students by distinguishing the achievements of teachers into four areas of education, research, service, and promotion of admission. Of these, the number of new students is 30 points for the recruitment of new students. The teacher member evaluation is based on the standard points for each of the following areas after calculating the standard points for each of the areas of education, research, service, and promotion of admission. The teachers evaluation sets out the classification of teachers based on the points calculated by adding up the points.

⑤ With respect to the area of “public relations for admission” in the above [Attachment I], the Defendant allocated a specific high school to individual teachers, and received a report on the results of visiting and publicizing a specific high school from teachers, and actually recognized the number of persons who applied for and registered at the specific high school, and determined their grades by allocating points to the relevant teachers.

6. Regarding the scope of the above [Attachment I]’s “fiveth Department Evaluation”, the Defendant’s Department Evaluation Manual of Year 2013 and Year 2014 marks 35 points out of the total point 100 points.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 5, 21, 22, Eul 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

(1) In light of the following circumstances revealed through the above facts, it is deemed null and void in violation of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation to take the recruitment rate of new students or the recruitment rate of new students in the instant provision on the annual salary contract for teachers.

(1) The duties of teachers under the Higher Education Act are to educate and guide students and conduct academic research.

② In addition to achievements and achievements (referring to research achievements, thesis guidance, career counseling, student guidance, etc.), the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that teachers’ remuneration shall be determined in consideration of qualifications, career, and degree of difficulty and responsibility of duties, and in principle, matters not directly related to the principal duties of teachers are not prescribed as factors that determine teachers’ remuneration.

(3) The Regulations on the Teachers' Annual Salary Contract System established by a resolution of the board of directors following the delegation by the defendant's articles of incorporation includes the recruitment rate of new students or the recruitment rate of new students. In principle, matters such as the recruitment of students are difficult to be considered as the main duties of teachers or incidental duties necessary for the performance of such duties.

④ According to the teacher performance evaluation table as above, the number of new students recruited or the number of new students recruited is 50 points, 10 points, 15 points, and 15 points. Among them, the number of new students recruited in the area of school performance evaluation is 1.15 points when simply calculated, 1.15 points when simply calculated the number of new students recruited in the area of school performance evaluation, and 1.5 points when considering the standard points, 15 points when considering the number of new students recruited in the area of school performance evaluation, and 15 points when considering the number of individual new students recruited in the area of school performance evaluation. The number of new students recruited in the area of 100 points for 10 points for 15 points for the total number of new students recruited in the area of 100 points for 10 points for 5.25 points for the recruitment of new students (15 points x 0.35). Ultimately, the number of new students recruited in the area of school performance evaluation cannot be said to be lower than the rate of 16.

(5) When a school foundation evaluates the performance of a teacher, it may include contributions to a school foundation in the items of actual evaluation of the teacher’s performance, which are performed in a field not directly related to the teacher’s duties. However, if the items of actual evaluation of performance irrelevant to the teacher’s main duties are determined by substantially assessing the teacher’s performance, and it would be so as to be hindered from performing the teacher’s main duties by raising the teacher’s performance, then it is not allowed. However, as in this case, if the evaluation of the number of new students recruited or new students recruited to reach 16.75% of the 100 points, it is difficult to allow it

(2) Meanwhile, in a case where a part of a juristic act becomes null and void because it violates the validity provision, which is a mandatory law, and thus becomes null and void, determination of whether the part would affect the validity and invalidity of the remaining part, the whole of the juristic act shall be null and void as a matter of principle, in accordance with the main sentence of Article 137 of the Civil Act, if an individual law provides for the effect of partial invalidation, and if there is no such provision, the whole of the juristic act shall be null and void. However, the proviso of the same Article, if it is acknowledged that if the parties had known such invalidation, even if there was no invalid part, the remaining part of the juristic act shall remain effective. In such a case, the intent of the parties refers to the intention of assumptive effect if a part of the juristic act was known at the time of the juristic act, and in light of the legislative purport, etc. of the pertinent provision, if all of the juristic act becomes null and void, it shall be acknowledged that the parties’ assumptive intent in this context would have committed such juristic act, barring any special circumstances (see, Supreme Court Decision 2016Da.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff entered into a faculty appointment contract on March 1, 2008 on the premise that the provision on the annual salary system for new students or the provision on the annual salary system for new students is applied, even if it was known that the part of the provision on the annual salary system for teachers subject to the application of the annual salary system is invalid since it violated the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff entered into a faculty appointment contract on the premise that the provision on the annual salary system for new students excluding the part on the evaluation of the performance of the recruitment or the recruitment rate for new students excluding the part on which the provision on the annual salary system for new students is applied. Accordingly, the contract for the appointment of teachers concluded on February 2, 2014 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant excluding the part on which the recruitment rate or the recruitment rate for new students is subject to the recruitment of new students or the recruitment of new students is still valid.

(3) Furthermore, if the Plaintiff’s performance evaluation is conducted in accordance with the provision of the annual salary contract for teachers excluding the recruitment rate of new students or the recruitment rate of new students, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff was able to receive KRW 2,481,460 reduced as shown in the attached Table 1-1, from February 2015 to January 2016, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the annual rate of 15% per annum as stated in the attached Table 1-1, as to each of the money indicated in the “monthly unpaid fee” on the attached Table 2,481,460 and the attached Table 1-1, whichever is reasonable to dispute on the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay each of the money from the relevant date to December 20, 2017, which is the sentencing date of the first instance court, and the next day to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. Since the part concerning the claim for remuneration equivalent to the reduced salary amount in accordance with the provision of the annual salary contract for teachers among the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and the above amount shall be revoked, and the remaining judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's remaining appeal and the defendant's appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Soh-ho (Presiding Judge) Constitution of Kim Jong-ho

1) The percentage of the points that the number of new students recruited in the teachers' occupational evaluation is maximum 2.3% [30 points for the new students recruited in the teachers' occupational evaluation + 300 points for the recruitment of new students in the public relations for admission + (290 points for the education promotion + 300 points for the public relations for admission + 300 points for the research promotion + 300 points for the research promotion + 300 points for the research promotion}. Thus, the points in the teachers' performance evaluation are maximum 1.15 points(=50 x 0.23). If the weight is applied, the percentage of points in the teacher's occupational evaluation for the teacher's occupational evaluation is maximum 3% [30 points for the new student recruited in the teacher's occupational evaluation x 30 points for the new student recruited in the teacher's occupational evaluation x 290 points x 290 points x 20 points x 300 points x 5.1).