Whether Article 54 of the Private School Act, which provides for procedures for appointment and dismissal of private school teachers, applies to the head of a school (affirmative)

Article 54 of the Private School Act which provides for procedures for appointment and dismissal of private school teachers shall be applied to the head of a school. Article 52 of the same Act which includes provisions concerning the head of a school such as Article 54-2 and Article 54-3 of the same Act, and Article 52 of the same Act which provides for "qualification for the head of a school" shall be applied to the head of a school. Article 53-2 of the same Act provides that "the appointment and dismissal of a teacher who is not the head of a school" is "the appointment and dismissal of a teacher who is not the head of a school." Article 53-3 (1) of the same Act provides that "the head of a school shall include the head of a school." Article 61 of the same Act provides that "the head of a school shall be excluded from the appointment and dismissal of the head of a school." Article 53-3 (4) of the same Act provides that "the head of a school shall be excluded from the appointment and dismissal of the head of a school." This provision shall also apply to the head of a school.

Articles 52, 53-2, 53-3(1), 54, 54-2, 54-3, and 61 of the Private School Act

Plaintiff

Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development shall review the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee

A school foundation genetic Institute of Education (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu14398 delivered on March 19, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to whether Article 54 of the Private School Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") which provides for procedures for appointment and dismissal of private school teachers applies to the head of a school, the title of Chapter IV is "private school teacher", and the provisions of Articles 54-2 and 54-3 are included in those provisions, and Article 52 of the Act which provides for "qualification as a teacher" is applied to the head of a school. Article 53-2 of the Act provides that "the appointment and dismissal of a teacher who is not the head of a school" and Article 53-3 (1) of the Act provides that "the appointment and dismissal of a teacher who is not the head of a school (excluding the head of a school)" shall be based on the premise that it includes the head of a school, and Article 61 of the Act on Grounds and Types of School Teachers shall be applied only to the head of a school, and it shall also be interpreted that the provisions of the Act are applied to the head of a school including the head of a school."

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The grounds of appeal disputing this issue are rejected.

2. In principle, when a disciplinary measure is taken against a private school teacher, the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure is at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. Thus, in order to be unlawful, the disciplinary measure is limited to the case where the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure has been deemed to abuse the authority to take the disciplinary measure, and the disciplinary measure is deemed to be clearly unfair in light of the characteristics of duties, the contents and nature of the reason for the disciplinary measure, and the purpose of the disciplinary measure and all the circumstances accompanying the disciplinary measure, depending on the specific cases (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du858, Oct. 13, 200, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's determination that the court below did not abuse discretion or deviate from the scope of discretion in the decision of the review of this case on the grounds as stated in its holding is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law, omission of judgment, or incomplete hearing.

The ground of appeal disputing this issue is rejected.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)