The scope of judgment on the action to invalidate the dismissal of a teacher

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a removal disposition filed by a teacher of a private school removed pursuant to Article 58 of the Private School Act, the legitimacy of a disciplinary action shall be determined only by the grounds for disciplinary action, which is the basis of the removal, and any other reason arising from the lawsuit process shall not be the basis for the determination that is not the grounds

Article 58 of the Private School Act

Plaintiff

Defendant School Foundation

Seoul and Criminal District Court (72Gahap134) in the first instance trial.

Supreme Court Decision 73Da1517 delivered on May 14, 1974

The judgment below is modified as follows.

The defendant's removal on January 20, 1972 against the plaintiff is confirmed to be null and void.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Order Nos. 2 and 4

The judgment below is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

Defendant’s attorney shall be appointed by the board of directors of the school juristic person after the resolution of appointment of the principal of the school juristic person is adopted by the approval of the Provincial Board of Education after the school juristic person’s board of directors passes a resolution of appointment of the principal, and, even in the case of removal of the principal, it is effective to dismiss the principal only after the committee cancels the name of the principal and cancels the approval. Thus, this case’s lawsuit disputing the validity of a disposition of removal of the principal against the Plaintiff is the subject of administrative litigation and is not the subject of civil litigation, but the work relationship of the teacher of the private school is the subject of civil litigation due to its nature. Therefore, it is not the subject of

2. Determination of alternatives to the merits

On June 1968, the plaintiff was unable to be deemed to have been dismissed on the ground that he was dismissed on the 2nd day of the above 6th day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 3th day.

In this case, the defendant's legal representative, even during the ordinary working hours, was frequently going out and play money with the visitors, and caused damage to the prestige and body of the school due to embezzlement and return of surplus funds such as school uniforms, photographs, small belts, textbooks, and textbooks, etc., which were collected from the students. The defendant's legal representative refused to comply with the recommendation of resignation, and rather, filed a complaint against the chief director of the defendant's legal representative by attaching embezzlement, and the defendant's legal representative argued that the removal disposition is justifiable on the ground that he/she tried to resign the chief director and fill up the president and to neglect his/her right to operate the school. However, in determining the legitimacy of the disciplinary action against the teacher of a private school, the disciplinary committee should consider the disciplinary action as grounds for disciplinary action as in the case of the public educational official, and should not include any other grounds from the process of the lawsuit. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's dismissal disposition cannot be justified with the above facts.

Therefore, the above removal disposition against the plaintiff shall not be dismissed unless it is made without a legitimate ground for disciplinary action or at least there is an abuse of the right of disciplinary action. Thus, the above removal disposition shall be deemed null and void even if it is deemed to be a part of the above appearance. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff seeking nullification of such removal shall be accepted as reasonable. Since the judgment of the court below which differs from the above conclusion and the defendant's appeal is without merit, it shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant

Judges Noh Byung-gu (Presiding Judge)

Of the absence of a judge’s transfer