1. Summary of the judgment below

(a) Fact-finding;

(1) The basic facts

(A) On November 5, 1996, Defendant Shin Il-hee (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) who is the president of the Korea Lifelong Education University (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) requested the Plaintiff to be dismissed from his position on November 5, 1996. On December 26, 26 of the same year, the teachers’ disciplinary committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on December 26 of the same year, and removed the Plaintiff on December 31 of the same month.

(B) The reason for the disciplinary action was that: (a) the Plaintiff violated the duty of professor in concert with the activities of the faculty council; (b) the Plaintiff committed a violation of the duty of professor in good faith with the president; (c) the Plaintiff’s sexual intercourse with the teaching assistant, thereby lacking the dignity and morality of professor; and (c) the Plaintiff violated the duty of professor by

(C) On March 17, 1997, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review of disciplinary action against the Ministry of Education’s disciplinary review committee seeking the revocation of the removal from office. On March 17, 1997, the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee changed the “Dismissal” to the “Removal.”

(D) As a result of the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the disciplinary action against the Seoul High Court case No. 97Gu2071, the lower court’s judgment: (i) that a private school teacher faithfully performs his/her duties with respect to the grounds for disciplinary action; and (ii) that a professor bears the duty of loyalty to the president that he/she would not express his/her opposition to the president as stated in the grounds for disciplinary action; (iii) that a professor belongs to the faculty council claiming the withdrawal of the president and the maintenance of the president system; and (iv) that the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the president was made by creating and distributing printed materials demanding the withdrawal of the president; and (v) that the Plaintiff’s act of removing the Plaintiff from his/her own position against the Defendant’s unlawful act; and (v) that the Plaintiff’s act of removing the Plaintiff’s dismissal from his/her position was deemed to constitute a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s unlawful act; and (v) that said, the Defendant’s act of removing the Plaintiff’s dismissal from his/her own position and thus, constitutes a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s dismissal.

(E) According to the final and conclusive judgment of this case, the defendant notified the plaintiff on November 28, 1998 that "the dismissal order was cancelled on March 18, 1997", and the defendant again requested the National Teachers' Disciplinary Committee of Gyeyang University to take disciplinary action against the plaintiff on December 1, 1998, the plaintiff was released from position on December 1, 1998, the disciplinary action was taken on February 26, 199, and the plaintiff was excluded from the appointment of professor on August 31 of the same year.

(2) Requirements for establishing tort

(A) The Korea Development Bank was established by the Korea Development Bank and the Korea Development Bank. At that time, the Korea Development Bank was established by the Korea Development Bank and the Korea Development Bank and the Korea Development Bank and was established by the Korea Development Bank. At that time, the Korea Development Bank and the Korea Development Bank were subsidized for the expenses of the establishment of the university from the grant of the grant of the grant of the grant of the grant of the grant of the grant of the grant of the grant of the grant of the establishment of the university.

(B) On 1961, the new attitude of the principal of the school of the school of the name of the name of the university, who was the principal of the school, was the principal of the school of the name of the university, and was employed as the president of the university of the name of the name of the university or the president of the name of the name of the name of the university until 1978 by taking advantage of the following methods: (a) the principal of the school of the name of the name of the university was appointed as the principal of the university of the name of the university of the name of the students through the amendment of the articles of incorporation and the abolition of the system of the name of the senior director for the name of the name of the university of the name of the university of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant school juristic person”); and (b) from 1978 to 198 to 198, the defendant, who

(C) On the other hand, as a result of the democratization of 1988, the name university introduced the presidential election system for the first time all over the country. The opposition and criticism of the professors of name universities who intend to check the long-term collection right and the sovereignty by a new father was raised, and the defendant submitted to professors a letter that he would not leave the next presidential election on 1992, while submitting to the professors a letter that he would not leave the next presidential election on 1992.

However, on March 28, 1996, the Defendant collected seven presidents of local universities and colleges with two months prior to the election of the sixth president, and decided to abolish the presidential election system, and unilaterally abolished the presidential election system of the Gwangju National University, and appointed it to the sixth President on May 9, 199 through the president candidate recommendation committee of the board of directors.

(D) The professors belonging to the faculty, including the Plaintiff, unilaterally abolished the president’s assignment system without gathering opinions from all professors, and take office again to the president without taking account of the fact that the Defendant’s unilateral abolition of the president’s assignment system is an obvious infringement of teaching rights as a tort, and entered the Defendant’s president’s departure movement on May 28, 1996, and students also refused to give written tests and take lessons, and began agricultural nature with occupation from June 12 to June 12 of the same year. As such, the name university was froged by the serious academic division.

(E) On June 2, 1996, the Defendant issued a decommissioning order to the Faculty Council, which sought to enforce the president selection system, and there was assault against the new and incumbent professor, who is the Vice-Speaker of the Teaching Council, during which the case was committed.

(F) From September 2, 1996, nine professors, including the chairman of the faculty council, enter the single farming nature again, and the submission of a written petition to the National Assembly by 60 professors belonging to the faculty council, etc. The defendant oversees the movement of the faculty council, students, and media, while the defendant intends to dismiss, dismiss, or dismiss the professors who participated in the faculty council, or resign from reappointment, thereby excluding from the borrowed university. First of all, on November 5 of the same year, the plaintiff was dismissed on December 31 of the same year.

(G) Meanwhile, on April 196, prior to the removal of the Plaintiff, at one’s own laboratory Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3, etc., expressed in relation to a specific part of a woman’s body or an expression related to a sexual intercourse between men and women. Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3, etc., on the same page, there was a brupted fact by hering Nonparty 4, such as Cho Jong-sung et al. on one occasion. However, on October 2, 1996, the National Ethical Association of Ethical and Ethical and Ethical and Ethical and Ethical and written statements about the fact to the male student’s ships of Ethical and Ethical and Ethical and Ethical and Ethical and written statements about the Plaintiff’s lack of morality.

(h) The Defendant constituted the Fact-finding committee immediately after the occurrence of the massive incident, and prepared an interview record after hearing the statements of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4, etc., who had been the Plaintiff’s assistant, on the confidential record. On the other hand, the Plaintiff responded to the request and requested disclosure of the list of the students who have made a statement and substitution with the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant refused to comply with the request and dismissed the Plaintiff as one of the grounds for disciplinary action.

B. Determination

According to the facts of recognition, the purpose of the removal of the Plaintiff was to prevent the Plaintiff from opposing the Plaintiff’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s own position by removing, removing, or evading from his one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s own one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s other.

In addition, the removal disposition against the plaintiff was conducted for the purpose of removing the professors belonging to the faculty council, such as the plaintiff who oppose the defendant's illegal appointment of president, and the disciplinary procedure was led by the defendant. Thus, even if the teachers' disciplinary committee followed a legitimate disciplinary procedure under the Private School Act with regard to the defendant's request for disciplinary decision, it is merely an appearance to meet the procedural and formal legitimate requirements of the disciplinary procedure, and therefore, the defendant is liable for the unlawful removal disposition.

Thus, the above act of the defendant constitutes a case where the defendant intentionally or negligently infringed the plaintiff's personality right, and thus, the defendant is liable as a tort, and the defendant school juristic person is jointly and severally liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as the employer.

2. The judgment of this Court

In a case where a person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss a private school teacher requests a disciplinary resolution as prescribed by the Private School Act, and the teachers' disciplinary committee made a disciplinary resolution following the prescribed procedure, and then the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss the teacher was subject to disciplinary action according to the contents of the decision (see Articles 61 through 66 of the Private School Act). In a case where a person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss a private school teacher intentionally removes or dismisses a teacher by using the means of disciplinary action under the intention to find the teacher at school even though there is no reason to impose such disciplinary action, or where a person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss a private school teacher intentionally removes or removes a disciplinary action under the intention to find the teacher at school without any reason, it is objectively apparent that the facts constituting the ground for such disciplinary action cannot be seen as the ground for removal or dismissal in light of the provisions of the Private School Act, and it can be easily identified if there is a clear reason that the exercise of the authority to discipline is beyond the scope of discretion or an abuse of discretionary power, and thus, it constitutes a tort against the other party.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the grounds and procedures for the disciplinary action, its procedure, etc., incomplete hearing, incomplete reasoning, or inconsistent reasoning, as otherwise asserted

The grounds of appeal pointing out this issue are not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)