Whether it is necessary to hear his/her statement in the consent procedure of the teachers' disciplinary committee for dismissal against a private school teacher;

Where a person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss a private school teacher dismissess a private school teacher on the ground of Article 58 (1) 4 of the Private School Act, he/she shall obtain the consent of the teachers' disciplinary committee under Article 62 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 1990) pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the same Act. In this case, he/she shall not hear his/her statement.

Articles 58(1)4 and 58(2) of the Private School Act; Article 62 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of April 7, 1990)

Supreme Court Decision 71Da205 Delivered on January 31, 1972 (No. 201Da19016 Delivered on April 26, 1994)

Plaintiff 1

Plaintiff 2, Attorneys Seo-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Sung-hoon et al., Counsel for a school foundation

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na4552 delivered on September 30, 1992

All of Plaintiff 1’s appeals and Defendant’s appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. First, we examine Plaintiff 1’s grounds of appeal.

(A) On July 9, 1989, the court below recognized the fact that the above plaintiff participated in the Korean Teachers' Union held at the Hoscar in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (former Seoul High School) and the Sungsung University (hereinafter referred to as the "former School") and decided that the defendant or the principal of the Sungsung High School promised the above plaintiff not to impose any disadvantage upon the plaintiff when submitting a withdrawal from the previous school by August 5, 1989. However, there is no evidence to support the above plaintiff's assertion that the defendant or the principal of the Sungsung High School submitted the withdrawal from the previous school by August 5, 1989. Therefore, in light of the records, the court below's examination is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit,

(B) If a person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss a private school teacher dismisss a private school teacher on the ground of Article 58(1)4 of the Private School Act, he/she shall obtain the consent of the teachers’ disciplinary committee pursuant to Article 62 pursuant to Article 58(2) of the same Act. In this case, he/she does not have to hear his/her statement (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da205, Jan. 31, 1972).

The court below is justified in holding that even if the defendant's disciplinary committee's dismissal was based on the premise that the above plaintiff was dismissed on the ground of Article 58 (1) 4 of the Private School Act, and there are reasons such as the defendant's notification to the above plaintiff before the above plaintiff's dismissal or the defendant's disciplinary committee does not hear the above plaintiff's statement before the above plaintiff's dismissal, the above consent or dismissal cannot be invalidated, and there is no violation of law such as

(C) The court below held that as long as the defendant legally dismissed the above plaintiff from office on the ground of the reason that the above plaintiff was a labor movement in accordance with the Private School Act, the Ministry of Education's guidelines, that is, teachers' labor movement actively recommends the withdrawal of all school teachers from office as illegal, and as to the principal employer from among those who refuse to withdraw until the end, the disciplinary action shall be taken until July 25, 1989, and as to the simple subscribers, until August 5 of the same year, the Superintendent of an Office of Education shall issue a warning to the person who has withdrawn before the referral to the Disciplinary Committee, and the disciplinary committee shall issue a warning to the person who has withdrawn from office after the referral to the Disciplinary Committee, and in the case of private school teachers and public schools, the dismissal disposition against the above plaintiff against the above plaintiff cannot be deemed null and void by going against the principle of good faith or by deviating from discretionary authority. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no violation of law such as

(D) The facts are as determined by the court below, and if the grounds for dismissal against the above plaintiff were as decided by the court below, even if the above plaintiff submitted a letter of withdrawal from school prior to the commencement of the retrial procedure, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law in violation of the Supreme Court precedents such as theory of lawsuit, and the court below also determined that the above plaintiff's dismissal against the above plaintiff does not abuse discretionary power by taking into account the fact that the plaintiff's dismissal from office was the chairman of the ordinary teachers' council for democratization in addition to the fact that the above plaintiff's dismissal from office was caused by the dismissal of this case, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles such as theory of lawsuit.

(E) The appeal that the ground for the dismissal of this case depends solely on whether the above plaintiff would withdraw from the former school or not, or the above plaintiff submitted the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Statement before the effect of the dismissal of this case. Therefore, the appeal that the dismissal of this case is illegal, it is merely based on the facts different from the original decision, or it is merely against the original decision on the ground of its own opinion. Thus, it is impossible to accept the appeal.

All arguments are without merit.

2. We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal against the Plaintiff 2.

If the facts are as determined by the court below, the dismissal of this case against the above plaintiff is illegal, and therefore, the judgment below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to ex officio dismissal such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, all appeals filed by plaintiffs 1 and appeals filed by the defendant against plaintiffs 2 are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)