Whether there is a ground for revocation of the retrial decision that there was a mistake of facts or deviation from abuse of discretionary power in the review decision.

Any unfavorable disposition such as disciplinary action against a teacher of a national or public school is an administrative disposition, and if a teacher of a national or public school is dissatisfied with a unfavorable disposition such as disciplinary action, a request for reexamination shall be made to the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee and if he/she is dissatisfied with the decision on reexamination, it shall be disputed through an appeal litigation. In this case, the disposition in question is a disposition by the original disposition office in principle, and an appeal litigation against a decision dismissing a request for reexamination is not possible on the ground of defect in the original disposition, and an appeal litigation against a decision dismissing the request for reexamination cannot be asserted on the ground of defect in the original disposition itself, and there is an error in the principal, procedure, form, or content of the decision itself. Therefore, the ground that the dismissal request for a revocation of the disposition by the Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education, which was dismissed

Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

The Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee

The Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education;

Law Firm citizen General Law Office, Attorneys Yoon Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu18063 delivered on July 8, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "the litigation for revocation shall be subject to a disposition, etc.: Provided, That in the case of a lawsuit for revocation of a decision, it is limited to the case where the decision itself has an error inherent in the decision itself, and the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status has established a Teachers' Disciplinary Review Committee in the Ministry of Education in order to review disciplinary action or other unfavorable measures against its will (Article 7 (1)); if a teacher is dissatisfied with a disciplinary action or other unfavorable measures against his will, he may request a review to the Review Committee within 30 days after he is informed of such disposition (Article 9 (1)); and a teacher may file a lawsuit in accordance with the Administrative Litigation Act (Article 10 (3)) within 60 days after he is notified of the decision by the Review Committee (Article 10 (3)).

An appeal litigation shall, in principle, be subject to the relevant disposition, and an appeal litigation against a ruling dismissing a request for an administrative appeal, which is recognized as legitimate, cannot be asserted on the ground of the defect of the original disposition itself, and it shall be interpreted to be limited to cases where there is an error in the form or content itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3314, Jan. 24, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu5673, Aug. 24, 1993). Therefore, inasmuch as an administrative disposition such as disciplinary action against a teacher of a national or public school is an administrative disposition, if a teacher of the national or public school is dissatisfied with such unfavorable disposition, he/she shall request a review to the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee, and it shall be limited to an appeal litigation against a ruling dismissing a request for a retrial, which is justified in principle, and it shall not be asserted on the ground of the defect of the original disposition, and it shall be limited to cases where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles or contents of discretionary authority concerning the plaintiff's request for review.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)