The dismissal under Article 58 of the Private School Act does not fall under the disciplinary action under Article 61 of the same Act, and therefore, in the case of dismissal under Article 58 (1) 2 through 5 of the same Act, the consent of the teachers' disciplinary committee under Article 62 of the same Act cannot be deemed to be a disciplinary action under Article 66 of the same Act. Therefore, there is no legal ground for applying or applying Article 65 (1) of the same Act with respect to the above consent, and even if the teachers' disciplinary committee of defendant corporation did not hear the plaintiff's statement before the consent to dismissal of the plaintiff, the above consent cannot be deemed to be null and void, and therefore, the defendant's dismissal disposition against the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be null and void.

The dismissal under Article 58 of the Private School Act does not fall under the disciplinary action under Article 61 of the same Act, and therefore, in the case of dismissal under Article 58 (1) 2 through 5 of the same Act, the consent of the teachers' disciplinary committee under Article 62 of the same Act cannot be deemed to be a disciplinary action under Article 66 of the same Act. Therefore, there is no legal ground for applying or applying Article 65 (1) of the same Act with respect to the above consent, and even if the teachers' disciplinary committee of defendant corporation did not hear the plaintiff's statement before the consent to dismissal of the plaintiff, the above consent cannot be deemed to be null and void, and therefore, the defendant's dismissal disposition against the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be null and void.

Articles 58, 61, 62, 65, and 66 of the Private School Act

Plaintiff

The East School Foundation of Education

Seoul Civil Area, Seoul High Court Decision 70Na551 delivered on December 18, 1970

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Defendant 1’s attorney’s grounds of appeal

The original judgment acknowledged that the defendant dismissed the plaintiff, who is a teacher of the East, Middle and High School, who he manages, with the consent of the teachers' disciplinary committee pursuant to Article 58 (2) 2 of the Private School Act, on the ground that the service performance provided for in Article 58 (1) 2 of the Private School Act is extremely poor. The plaintiff, although the teachers' disciplinary committee has heard the statement of the person against whom the disciplinary action was taken before the decision was made, in this case, the above teachers' disciplinary committee established in the defendant corporation did not have any opinion of the person against whom the disciplinary action was taken against the plaintiff. Thus, the above disciplinary action and the above dismissal disposition against the plaintiff are alleged to be null and void, so it is necessary to obtain the consent of the teachers' disciplinary committee pursuant to Article 58 (2) 2 through 5 of the Private School Act in case where an dismissal disposition is made on the ground that the above teachers' disciplinary action was made on the ground that there is a reason as stated in Article 58 (1) 2 through 5 of the same Act.

However, the procedure of Article 65 (1) of the same Act that provides that "if a request for a disciplinary decision is not made twice or more times, it shall not be based only on the claimant's assertion and investigation of the disciplinary committee's own opinion, but it is necessary and reasonable to decide whether to take a disciplinary measure after a year of the confirmation of the existence of the disciplinary cause and the kind of the disciplinary action and making a statement on the grounds of the disciplinary action and circumstances of the person subject to the disciplinary action. Therefore, from this point of view, it is reasonable to interpret the above provision of Article 65 (1) as a mandatory provision that the disciplinary committee must comply with when it makes a disciplinary decision against a teacher, and it is reasonable to interpret that the non-compliance with the procedure is invalid. In this case, it is reasonable to interpret that the disciplinary decision is invalid, and the above decision of the disciplinary committee established in the defendant corporation made a statement of the plaintiff who was the person subject to the disciplinary action before it makes a disciplinary decision (Consent to the disciplinary action) against the plaintiff, or there is no evidence that the plaintiff's non-compliance with the witness's summons made more than the above decision.

However, as to the dismissal of a private school teacher from office, Article 58 (1) 1 through 5 of Chapter IV of the Private School Act provides the grounds for dismissal from office in accordance with the above provisions of Article 58 (2) of the same Act, and Article 62 of the same Act provides that the consent of the teachers' disciplinary committee shall be obtained in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of Chapter IV of the same Act (Articles 61 through 69). As to disciplinary action, Article 61 of the same Act provides that the grounds for dismissal from office are different from those of the above dismissal, disciplinary action shall be classified into suspension from office, reduction of salary, probation, and reprimand, and Article 62 of the same Act provides that the establishment of the teachers' disciplinary committee shall be regulated in accordance with the above provisions of Article 64 of the same Act, and it shall be examined in a disciplinary case, and it shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court prior to the dismissal of the plaintiff, who is the ground for dismissal from office, and therefore, the above provision of Article 65 (1) of the same Act provides that the defendant's disciplinary committee shall not be subject to dismissal from office.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu