[1] The purport of Article 65(1) of the Private School Act concerning the guarantee of right to state in a disciplinary procedure against a private school teacher

[2] Whether a person to be disciplined may be deemed deprived of his/her right to make a statement, in cases where the relevant private school teachers' disciplinary committee limits the time to make a statement because of a large number of validity of the person to be disciplined and the person to be disciplined requested to make a supplementary statement in writing.

[1] The purport of Article 65(1) of the Private School Act stipulating that a disciplinary committee shall hear statements from a person before making a disciplinary decision is to ensure the right of defense by providing the person subject to disciplinary action with an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and make a statement favorable to him/her in order to vindicate the facts of suspicion of disciplinary action in disciplinary proceedings against the teacher of private school.

[2] Where a disciplinary committee, which was held to deliberate a disciplinary case on a private school teacher, completed a statement within 10 minutes by a person to be disciplined and made a statement within the limit of 10 minutes in order to avoid and efficiently carry out the proceedings with respect to which a person to be disciplined has many effects on the disciplinary action, and the person to be disciplined requested to do so in writing, and the person to be disciplined to respond to the request in writing, and most of them were made, and the person to be disciplined deprived of the person to be disciplined's right to make a statement.

[1] Article 65 (1) of the Private School Act / [2] Article 65 (1) of the Private School Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da3745 delivered on May 14, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1705) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17426 delivered on June 25, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2154)

Plaintiff 1 and six others (Law Firm Subdivision, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee of the Ministry of Education

A New School of Education (Attorney Yoon Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu14843 delivered on July 2, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The judgment of the court below as to the fact-finding and the abuse of discretionary power, which are pointed out in the ground of appeal (the fact-finding and the judgment as to the abuse of discretionary power with respect to the fact-finding and the fact-finding as to the students' rejection of teaching as teachers and the encouragement of the students' rejection of teaching and the elimination of iron farming), shall be justified in light of the evidence relations stated by the court below, and there shall be no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to mistake of facts against the rules of evidence or abuse of discretionary power. The ground of appeal as to this issue

On the second ground for appeal

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the record, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or in violation of the rule of experience in determining that the Intervenor’s disciplinary committee dismissed the Plaintiffs’ motion to challenge Nonparty U-Seong, Song-young, and leapat as a disciplinary member in the instant disciplinary procedure against the Plaintiffs.

In addition, Article 65 (1) of the Private School Act provides that a disciplinary committee shall hear statements from a person before making a disciplinary decision to ensure the right of defense by providing the teacher subject to disciplinary action with an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and make statements favorable to him/her in order to vindicate the facts of suspicion of disciplinary action in the disciplinary proceedings against the teacher of private school.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the intervenor disciplinary committee held to deliberate a disciplinary case on the plaintiffs cannot be deemed as deprived of the plaintiffs' right to make a statement, unless the plaintiff completed a statement within 10 minutes and made a statement to the person subject to disciplinary action in writing, and the plaintiffs made a statement to respond to it without any objection, and most of them were made a reply. In light of the purport of the above provision, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legitimate disciplinary proceedings.

This part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)