[1] Where a decision to reject the reappointment of a teacher of a private university who is appointed as a fixed-term teacher and the term of appointment expires is null and void, and where the burden of proving the invalidation of the decision to reject reappointment due to deviation or abuse of discretionary power

[2] In a case where a private university teacher has the ability and qualities to conduct academic research but does not have the ability and qualities to maintain dignity as a teacher, whether re-election may be refused (affirmative)

[1] Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 7 of the Special Act on the Relief of Persons Disqualified from Appointment as a University Faculty; Article 53-2 of the Private School Act / [2] Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 7 of the Special Act on the Relief of Persons Disqualified from Appointment as a University Faculty Members; Article 53-2 of

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da9009 decided Feb. 1, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 306)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dan, Attorneys Park Jong-mun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Special Committee on Appeal against Teachers

Intervenor’s University (Law Firm KCEL, Attorneys Kim Yong-hoon et al., Counsel for the intervenor’s plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu4553 decided Oct. 24, 2007

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the Special Act on Remedies for De-election from Faculty Members (hereinafter “Special Act on Remedies”), a teacher at a private university whose term of appointment expires after being appointed as a fixed-term teacher and being subject to a fair examination based on reasonable standards of his/her ability and qualities, barring any special circumstance, shall be deemed to have the right to demand a fair examination based on reasonable standards of whether he/she is reappointed with the expectation of reappointment unless he/she satisfies the above criteria. Therefore, even if there is no ground for falling short of the criteria for examination of reappointment, i.e., the objective reason for refusal of reappointment of a teacher at a private university or college, or even if there are such ground, he/she may be allowed to review the eligibility by verifying his/her ability and qualities as a teacher, and thus deny the validity of the decision on rejection of reappointment based on reasonable standards in light of social norms, such decision on rejection of reappointment shall be deemed null and void. In addition, in light of the Constitution, education-related Acts and subordinate statutes and subordinate statutes, 200 students’ ability and qualities and qualifications as a teacher.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that dismissed the plaintiff's request for reexamination of reappointment is just and acceptable. The judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of examination standards under Article 7 of the Special Relief Act and the violation of the rules of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)