Where there are grounds for invalidation in the appointment of assistant professors, the validity of the appointment of associate professors thereafter.

Article 53-2 (2) and Article 54 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 1990) and Article 11 (3) of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 4348 of Mar. 8, 1991) appear to have the purpose of guaranteeing the status of teachers for each university faculty member separately from each position to each position. Therefore, in light of such purport, the act of appointing a person who was appointed as an associate professor to the same university after being appointed as an associate professor shall not be deemed as a simple act of promotion appointment based on the appointment of an associate professor, not a new act of establishment of a new status relationship, and therefore, the act of appointing an associate professor as an associate professor shall not be deemed null and void as a matter of course due to the grounds for invalidation in the appointment of an associate professor.

Articles 53-2(2) and 54 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226, Apr. 7, 1990); Article 11(3) of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 4348, Mar. 8, 1991)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Ministry of Education Disciplinary Review Committee

Attorney O Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu6886 delivered on December 3, 1992

The part concerning the claim for revocation of the decision dismissing the petition for retrial seeking revocation of the appointment of associate professor among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant's intervenor (hereinafter the intervenor's title) appointed the plaintiff as the assistant professor at ○ University operated by the intervenor on August 22, 1981, but on April 1, 1982, the plaintiff was disqualified for the appointment of teacher at the time of the above appointment and revoked the above appointment of the plaintiff on October 14, 1991. The plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act on January 31, 1980, and it is obvious that the suspended sentence period has not elapsed at the time of the above appointment of assistant professor, and since the plaintiff's appointment of the plaintiff constitutes grounds for disqualification under Article 33 subparagraph 5 of the State Public Officials Act, which applies to private school teachers under Article 77 of the Education Act, the defendant's act of dismissing the plaintiff's appointment of the assistant professor by the above assistant professor is also invalid, and thus, the plaintiff's above appointment of the plaintiff's appointment of the assistant professor is also void.

However, Article 53-2 (2) and Article 54 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 190) which regulates the appointment and dismissal of the faculty of a private university at the time of such appointment shall require the college educational institution to appoint them by specifying a period for each post, and shall report to the supervisory authority whenever each appointment is made. Meanwhile, Article 11 (3) of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 4348 of Mar. 8, 191), which regulates the appointment and dismissal of the faculty of a national or public university, requires the university educational institution to appoint them by specifying a period for each post, and it is reasonable to deem that the above provision on the appointment and dismissal of the faculty of a university as an associate professor is null and void as a matter of course in light of the purport of the Act on the Appointment of an associate professor, which is a law regulating the appointment and dismissal of the faculty of a national or public university, as well as the act of appointment of an associate professor as an associate professor.

In light of the above legal principles, the above determination that the appointment of the associate professor as well as the appointment of the associate professor is null and void inasmuch as the act of appointment of the assistant professor is deemed as an act of appointment of the assistant professor based on the act of appointment of the assistant professor as well as the act of appointment of the assistant professor is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the appointment of the faculty

2. On the second ground for appeal

The issue is that the intervenor, after the appointment of the assistant professor for the plaintiff, appointed the plaintiff as an associate professor and appointed the assistant professor for the plaintiff as an associate professor, although he was aware that the appointment was null and void, the plaintiff's revocation of the appointment of the assistant professor for the plaintiff, and the appointment was made as an associate professor for the university's major position. In light of the purport that this constitutes ratification or conversion of invalidation, it shall be recognized as valid. However, in light of the records, it is obvious that such assertion is asserted only when the plaintiff did not know at all at all in the court below, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for

3. Therefore, the appeal on the part of the plaintiff's appeal concerning the dismissal of the plaintiff's request for retrial seeking revocation of the appointment of associate professor among the plaintiff's appeal of this case is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. The appeal on the remaining part is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal on the dismissal of the above appeal are assessed against the losing party's assent

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)