(영문) 서울고등법원 2012.3.9.선고 2010나92034 판결

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under confirming the status of assistant professor and ordering the payment of money shall be revoked.

2. A. The Plaintiff confirms that the Defendant is an assistant professor of the digital image department at ○○ University established and operated by the Defendant.

B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 91, 99, 992 won and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum from February 26, 2010 to March 9, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 3,833,333 won per month from March 1, 2010 to the time of determining whether to re-contract with the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation costs, 60% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2-b. above may be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

1) ① In the first place, the Plaintiff is an assistant professor of the Digital Video Department at ○○ University established and operated by the Defendant.

confirmation that the defendant is in the position of 211, 99, 992 won and 91, 99,92 won among them to the plaintiff.

As regards February 25, 2010, 50,000 won from February 25, 2010, 50,000 won from February 21, 2007, 50,00 won, 00 won

As regards April 23, 2009, 20, 000, and 00 won, each of the instant plates from July 12, 2007

5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and

The defendant shall pay the money so paid, and the plaintiff shall be the 25th day of each month from March 1, 2010 to the date of returning the plaintiff to the original state.

(2) Preliminaryly, the defendant's plaintiff shall pay the amount of 3,833,33 won per month.

On March 17, 2010, the disposition rejecting reappointment was confirmed to be null and void, and the plaintiff shall be deemed to have become final and conclusive.

The defendant establishes and operates 100 universities for two years from the first day of the following semester of the term to which he/she belongs.

It is confirmed that the defendant is in the position of assistant professor of the digital image department. The defendant must pay to the plaintiff 211, 99, 992

Of them, 91, 99, 992 won from February 25, 2010, 50, 000 won, and 00 won from February 25, 2010.

21. From March 1, 2008 to 50,000 won, from March 1, 2008 to 19,000 won, and from 00 won.

12. From the judgment of each case to the judgment of each case, 5% per annum and the interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

20% interest shall be paid, and the defendant shall re-contract with the plaintiff from March 1, 2010 to the plaintiff.

Until the examination is conducted, the amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 3,833,33 per month shall be paid to the Plaintiff on the 25th day of each month.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. (1) The plaintiff is primarily established and operated by the defendant.

It is confirmed that ○○ University is an assistant professor of digital image studies, and the defendant is the plaintiff.

For 210, 99, 992 Won and its 91, 99, and 92 Won among them, 50, 00 won, 00 won from February 25, 2010

E. From February 21, 2007, 50, 000, and 00 won from April 23, 2009, 19, 000,000

from July 12, 2007 to the rendering date of each judgment in this case, 5% per annum and the next day.

The payment shall be made at the rate of 20% per annum until the date of complete payment, and the defendant shall March 1, 2010.

The amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 3,833,333 per month to the plaintiff from the 25th day of each month until the plaintiff is reinstated.

(2) The defendant's refusal to be reappointed on March 17, 2010 against the defendant's plaintiff is not a disposition for refusal to be reappointed.

It is confirmed that the plaintiff has the effect on the first day of the following semester of the semester to which the date when the judgment in this case becomes final and conclusive.

For 2 years, the defendant is in the position of assistant professor of the digital image department of 100 university established and operated by the defendant

The defendant confirmed that the plaintiff 210, 99, 992 won and 91, 999, and 992 won among them.

25. From February 21, 2007 to 50,000 won, from February 21, 2007 to 50,000 won, and from 00 won.

1. From July 12, 2007 to the date of pronouncement of each of the judgments in this case, with respect to 19,000 won, and 00 won;

5%, 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, shall be paid;

J. From March 1, 2010 to March 1, 2010, the 25th day of each month to the Plaintiff’s re-contract review for the Plaintiff.

The amount of money calculated at the rate of 3,833,330 won shall be paid.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant

1) The Defendant, a corporation established on December 13, 200, is operating ○ University, which is a distance college-type lifelong educational establishment, the degree of which is recognized as equal to junior college graduates, in addition to school education, pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Lifelong Education Act (amended by Act No. 8676 of Dec. 14, 2007), and Article 22(1) and (3) of the same Act.

2) On December 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as ○○ University’s digital image faculty member on a one-year contract basis, which was established and operated by the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, after the said employment period was passed on November 30, 2003, were renewed on February 1, 2004, and then appointed as 5 assistant professor class by renewal of the contract and renewal as of February 5, 2004, and the contract term is 204.

3. From January to February 28, 2006, the annual salary system shall be 4,310,000 won per annual salary system shall be equally divided and paid in 3,591,660 won per month. The annual salary contract shall be conducted every school year in accordance with "the 25th day of each month", "the 5th day of the 25th day of the month, the annual salary and the 60th day of the 2th day of the 2th day of the 2th day of the 2th day of the 2th day of the 3th day of the 3th day of the 3th day of the 206th day of the 206th day of the 3th day of the 206th day of the 3th day of the 206th day of the 3th day of the 3th day of the 3th day of the 3th day of the 3th day of the 3th day of the 3th day of the 2th day of the 2th day.

B. The Defendant, as a personnel management standard on July 8, 2005, established the personnel regulations for the faculty and determined that “the results of the evaluation of teachers’ achievements and the performance evaluation management of the staff shall be set up after the enactment of the relevant detailed regulations.” However, the Defendant did not enact any provision regarding the criteria for the appointment and re-election of full-time faculty members at the time of the enactment of the relevant detailed regulations, and for the transition evaluation of the fixed-term system.

2) Accordingly, on February 27, 2006, the defendant made a new provision for twenty-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three, respectively.

B. Around February 28, 2006, a contract-based full-time teacher whose contract term expires as of February 28, 2006 shall be deemed to have been concluded for two years from March 1, 2006 to February 28, 2008 without a separate reappointment procedure, and the contract-based conversion procedure, etc. shall be deemed to have been implemented prior to the expiration of the future contract term. However, as seen below, the Plaintiff was excluded from 12 full-time teachers subject to the above contract-based conversion procedure on the wind dismissed as of February 20, 207.

C. The Plaintiff, from around February 2005 to January 21, 2007, served as the president of the ○○ University Faculty Council. On February 9, 2007, the Defendant referred the Plaintiff to the Disciplinary Committee on the ground that (i) the Plaintiff engaged in defamation against the chief director, etc. of the Foundation; (ii) the student’s act of supporting and instigating the Plaintiff’s agricultural nature; and (iii) the external press company, etc. provided any suspicion without any ground, such as embezzlement of school expenses; and (ii) the Defendant’s Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on February 20, 207; and (iii) the president of the ○○ University notified the Plaintiff of the details of the resolution on the Plaintiff on February 21, 2007 (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”).

2) Accordingly, on April 18, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a petition for nullification of the removal disposition of this case with the Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap3295 on April 14, 2008, and was sentenced to a judgment confirming the invalidity of the removal disposition of this case from the same court on February 14, 2008, which became final and conclusive through the High Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na35687, Dec. 26, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da9096, Apr. 23, 2009). The reasons are as follows: (i) although there is no illegality in disciplinary proceedings, it is difficult to view that the professor Council posted a notice in the process of expressing his opinion on the establishment and amendment of regulations as part of school normalization measures, and (ii) even if there is no evidence that the Plaintiff’s removal of the Plaintiff’s act of inciting the president of this case constitutes an abuse of the Plaintiff’s discretionary authority.

6. 11. The dismissal disposition of this case is null and void due to abuse of discretionary power. The plaintiff is deemed to have implicitly renewed the appointment contract with the defendant as a contracting teacher by February 29, 2008, and the validity of the dismissal disposition of this case is suspended until the court of first instance declares. The court of first instance determines that the plaintiff is temporarily in the position of assistant professor of ○○ University digital image university until February 29, 2008, and that the defendant shall not interfere with the plaintiff's performance of duties as a professor by preventing the plaintiff from entering the research institute within Seoul Camp, and the defendant shall pay 3,83,333 won temporarily to the plaintiff on the 25th day of each month. The defendant's dismissal of the above assistant professor by recognizing the status of assistant professor of ○○ University from February 29, 2008 to the above position of assistant professor of ○○ University (the above order becomes null and void by the Supreme Court Decision No. 20069, Feb. 29, 2008).

Only sending a content-certified mail (No. 4 and No. 8-3) in the name of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not take any other specific measures in relation to the reappointment of the Plaintiff.

D. On September 23, 2009, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit. On January 29, 2010, 2010, the ○○ University Department Head of the ○○ University: (a) confirmed on January 29, 2010 that the Plaintiff is in a position to undergo a fair examination as to whether the Plaintiff will be reappointed as fixed-term or fixed-term faculty members in accordance with the instant judgment; and (b) intended to conduct an examination for reappointment by February 22, 2010, the Plaintiff submitted an application for an examination, teaching evaluation, research, and original documents of the results necessary for the examination of reappointment; and (c) sent a document verifying the content of “A request for submission of materials to evaluate his/her achievements following the reexamination” (Evidence No. 14). Accordingly, on February 20, 2010, the Plaintiff sent an application for examination of the president of the ○ University, along with a letter of evidence No. 16 or evidence No. 16 (Evidence No. 16).

2) On March 17, 2010, the aforementioned dedicated to the dedicated set was sent to the Plaintiff, on March 10, 2010, a content-certified mail (Evidence A No. 26) stating that the result of the examination of the reappointment of the Plaintiff based on the Plaintiff’s above data submitted by the teachers’ personnel committee on March 10, 2010, led to the examination of the Plaintiff’s reappointment based on the Plaintiff’s above data submitted by the Plaintiff, and that the result of the examination of the absence of the requisite research requirement required for reappointment was as follows. The above content-certified mail sent to the Plaintiff around that time.

E. Relevant regulations are as stated in the Defendant’s personnel management regulations, etc. related to the case as stated in the attached Form.

[Grounds for Recognition] Each entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14 through 23, 26, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The legal nature of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s legal relationship is whether the Plaintiff is a teacher under the Private School Act, first of all, under the premise that the Plaintiff is in a university faculty position applicable under the Private School Act, the Plaintiff filed a claim to confirm the status of assistant professor pursuant to the provisions related to the reappointment of the current Private School Act. Therefore, the provision on the status of teacher under the Private School Act is applied or applicable mutatis mutandis to ○○ University established and operated under the provisions related to the Lifelong Education

B) The purpose of the Lifelong Education Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8676, Dec. 14, 2007; hereinafter the same) is to provide for the basic matters concerning the lifelong education system and its operation (Article 1), except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts, the provisions of this Act apply (Article 3), Article 33(3)1, and Article 34 of the same Act provides for the establishment of a cyber college-type lifelong educational establishment whose degree is recognized as equal to those of junior college or university graduates, the former Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development shall obtain authorization from the Minister, and Article 28(2) of the Lifelong Education Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8676, Dec. 14, 200); Article 29(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act provides for the establishment and operation of a cyber college-type lifelong educational establishment, which is established and operated by the Defendant, and Article 50(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, including the classification and submission of accounts, and accounts, etc.

The "Rules 4 on the Criteria for Qualification and Qualification of Teaching Staff" shall apply mutatis mutandis to the matters concerning qualification standards and qualification standards, and when a person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss teachers appoints or dismisses teachers, only the fact is required to be reported to the Minister of Education, Science and Technology within seven days from the date of appointment or dismissal of teachers.

C) As such, the Lifelong Education Act only applies mutatis mutandis to a person who establishes and operates a cyber college-type lifelong educational establishment and its facilities, and the lifelong educational institution provided for in the Lifelong Education Act is not included in a private school provided for in Article 2(1)6 of the Private School Act, as well as to guarantee the status and status of private school teachers in the Private School Act.

The qualifications, appointment, and service (Articles 52 through 55 of the Private School Act), guarantee of status and social security (Articles 56 through 60-3 of the same Act), and the disciplinary action (Articles 61 through 69 of the same Act) of the prescribed teachers are not applied mutatis mutandis under the Lifelong Education Act.

D) Therefore, with respect to teachers employed by a distance college-type lifelong educational establishment established and operated pursuant to the provisions related to the Lifelong Education Act as Plaintiff, the provisions related to reappointment, etc., which are established to guarantee their status and status as private school teachers under the current Private School Act, shall not apply or apply mutatis mutandis. Under the premise that the Plaintiff is in the status of university faculty members under the Private School Act, the Plaintiff’s relevant assertion, such as confirmation of the status of assistant professor, sought pursuant to the provisions related to the reappointment of the current Private School Act, is without merit

2) In a case where the Private School Act does not apply to the status or treatment of the faculty members of this ○ University, the Plaintiff constitutes a labor contract under the Labor Standards Act, which provides labor to the Defendant, who is the employer, for the purpose of wages. On December 1, 2002, the contract of this case was renewed on 3 occasions after the first contract was concluded on 1 December 2002, 2006, and the Plaintiff asserted that the contract of this case constitutes a labor contract without a fixed period of time, such as guaranteeing the status of the Plaintiff as a full-time teacher, and provided labor as an assistant professor of the contract at ○○ University established and operated by the Defendant, and the contract of this case constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and the contract of this case constitutes a labor contract. Meanwhile, even if the contract of this case was prepared for a fixed period of time when the employee and employer entered into a labor contract, regardless of the motive and circumstances leading up to the conclusion of the contract, the purpose and the genuine period of the contract of this case’s labor contract, and the same type and method of employment contract were determined.

However, in a case where the above circumstances are not acknowledged, the labor contract between the employee and the employer is concluded with a fixed period of time (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du2247, Jul. 12, 2007; 2005Du625, Feb. 24, 2006; 2005Du5673, Feb. 24, 2006, etc.).

C) Although the Plaintiff’s duties are recognized to be specialized in teaching staff, and given its nature, even if the Defendant is ordinarily and continuously engaged in the duties necessary to establish and operate ○○ University, such circumstances may be considered as justifiable grounds for recognizing the right to expect renewal of the employment contract. In full view of the following circumstances, the term of the instant contract is merely a form and cannot be deemed as a non-fixed-term employment contract, notwithstanding the language and text of the contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the instant contract for the appointment of teaching staff is a non-fixed-term employment contract is without merit. (1) The instant contract for the appointment of teaching staff is concluded every academic year in accordance with the “Professor’s annual salary and proposal for reappointment”, and the agreement on whether to renew the employment contract is made by two months prior to the expiration date of the contract term, and if so, it is automatically dismissed without re-employment by re-contract.

(2) On December 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as ○○ University’s digital image faculty assistant professor on a one-year contract basis with the knowledge of the terms and conditions of the above contract as above, and on February 1, 2004, from March 1, 2004 to February 2, 2006

28. Up to the two-year contract as an assistant professor, and only the contract of this case was concluded on March 1, 2005 by raising the class and salary grade during the said contract period. (3) At the time of entering into the instant contract for the appointment of a teacher, “The evaluation of the achievements by year of full-time teacher according to the "Standards for Professor's annual salary and Reappointment newly established in 2004" was determined on the basis of the results, and the annual salary was decided on the basis of the annual salary and reappointment (No. 10 evidence No. 1, No. 2, No. 31-1, No. 31-2, No. 3). (4) After entering into the instant contract for the appointment of a teacher, following the conclusion of the instant contract for the appointment of a teacher, the "the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teachers and Staff on July 8, 2005" and the "Public Officials Regulations on July 206.

5. 22. 22. The detailed regulations on the examination for the transition of former faculty members, including the Act on the Examination for the Conversion of the Fixed-Term Faculty Members, the Act on the Evaluation of the Status of Former Faculty Members, and the Act on the Appointment of Contract System for Former Faculty Members, respectively, were enacted, and the regulations on the guarantee of status or treatment for the faculty members working at ○○○ University, which are similar to those on which the Private School Act applies.

3) In the case of an employee who has entered into a labor contract with a fixed period of time, the pertinent employee’s status as an employee shall be naturally terminated upon the expiration of the contract and, if the contract is not renewed, the refusal of the contract shall be automatically dismissed even if there is no declaration of intent to renew the contract. However, even though the term expires in the labor contract, employment rules, collective agreement, etc., the pertinent employment contract shall be renewed upon the fulfillment of certain requirements. However, in full view of the circumstances surrounding the pertinent employment contract, including the motive and circumstance for which the contract is concluded even if there is no provision, the establishment of the requirements or procedure for renewal, such as the standard for renewal of the contract, and the actual condition thereof, and the contents of the work performed by the employee, if there is a trust relationship that the contract is renewed upon the fulfillment of certain requirements between the parties to the employment contract, and thus, if the employer’s right to expect unfairly refusing the contract in violation of such provision is deemed to have no effect as unfair. In this case, it is identical with the previous employment contract renewed after the termination of the contract (see, 2017Du7, Apr. 27, 2017, 2014.

B) As seen earlier, on December 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as ○○ University’s assistant professor on a one-year contract basis for digital image studies and renewed the contract once on or around February 2, 2004 as an assistant professor on a two-year contract basis. However, the Plaintiff recognized expertise in the Plaintiff’s duties as ○○ University’s assistant professor on and around February 1, 2004, and given its nature, the Defendant’s regular and continuous work necessary to establish and operate ○○ University. ② According to the instant contract for the appointment of teachers, the annual salary and the standards for reappointment of ○ University’s faculty members, and the annual evaluation of achievements by full-time faculty members are determined and reappointed. According to the Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act as seen earlier, the provisions on qualification requirements for ○○ University’s faculty members under the provisions of the Higher Education Act apply mutatis mutandis to the recognition of qualification and qualification for ○○ University’s faculty members, such as the Plaintiff, were established and applied mutatis mutandis to 20.

5. In full view of the following: (a) as a detailed provision of 22. Along with the fact that the Plaintiff treated ○○ University faculty members, similar to those to which the Private School Act applies, by amending all the regulations related to personnel management of the faculty, such as the former faculty members’ fixed-term conversion examination rules, the former faculty members’ achievements evaluation rules, and the former faculty member’s employment contract rules, the Plaintiff is deemed to have a legitimate expectation right to renew the instant contract for the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff is in a trust relationship with the Plaintiff, which satisfies the requirements, such as obtaining deliberation points above a certain standard through the process of performance evaluation as prescribed by the relevant regulations related to personnel management of the faculty members.

B. On February 28, 2006, the Plaintiff sent a public notice to the Defendant that the term of the contract is extended by the time of re-contract with respect to the former faculty whose contract was terminated on February 28, 2006. While the new provision was created on May 22, 2006, the Defendant issued the instant dismissal disposition under the condition that the Plaintiff did not re-contract with the Plaintiff, and the subsequent dismissal decision became final and conclusive as to the instant dismissal disposition, the instant teachers appointment contract still remains valid after March 2008, and continues to be in the status of assistant professor until the time of re-contract with the Plaintiff.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned facts, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s instant contract for the appointment of teachers is still valid until the contract period has been extended by the time of the expiration of the contract period after the expiration of the contract period on February 28, 2006 through the conversion of the fixed-term or re-contract examination procedure with the Plaintiff, and is not terminated by the date of closing argument in the trial. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is deemed to be an assistant professor of the ○○○ University Digital Video University established and operated by the Defendant pursuant to the instant contract for the appointment of teachers until the time of determining whether to renew the contract with the Plaintiff after March 2008. (A) The Defendant created a new provision for the renewal of the contract period until the expiration of the contract period as of February 28, 2006, taking into account the lack of the provision related to teachers’ personnel management and school requirements at the time, etc., and notified the Plaintiff of the extension of the contract period by the time of signing the contract.

B) On May 22, 2006, the Defendant enacted and implemented detailed regulations related to teacher personnel management, such as the entry of the newly attached regulations, etc., and on March 12, 2007, with a view to preventing disadvantages to the existing full-time teachers through the "Guidance for Change of the Fixed-term Teachers System and Guidance for Implementation of Recontracts (No. 5-1)" prior to the expiration of the term of office on March 12, 2007, the Defendant: (a) as the Plaintiff on February 28, 2006; (b) 12 full-time teachers subject to an application for transition of the fixed-term teachers, whose term of office expires as of February 28, 2006;

3.1. He notified the Plaintiff that he will not be converted to a fixed-term full-time teacher, or that he will maintain his status as a full-time full-time teacher during the contract period for two years from March 1, 2007 to February 28, 2009 through the procedures for applying for re-contract. However, the Plaintiff did not provide such guidance on the ground that he was dismissed on February 20, 2007.

C) In full view of the contents of the above-mentioned detailed regulations related to teachers' personnel management and the contents of the "examination for transition of the term position and guidance for the implementation of the re-contract", as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the term "the term of the instant teachers' appointment contract, which the Defendant notified the Plaintiff, is extended until the renewal of the contract," which means that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with a new provision for transition of the term or re-contract procedures in accordance with the newly enacted personnel regulations, and that the term of the instant teachers' appointment contract is extended by the time when the fixed term conversion or re-contract procedures are conducted upon the Plaintiff's request, and that the term of the instant teachers' appointment contract was extended by the time when the fixed term transition or re-contract procedures are not confirmed by the Seoul Central District Court 2007Kahap1213, Apr. 13, 2007, the Plaintiff did not request the Plaintiff to invalidate the provisional disposition that became final and conclusive on April 18, 2007 by the Seoul Central District Court 2009.

E) However, from January 29, 2010 during the proceeding of the first instance trial, the lower court held on March 10, 2010 on the ground that the ○○ University principal requested the Plaintiff to submit an application and relevant examination data relating to the procedures for examining the reappointment of a faculty member on a contract basis and decided whether to re-appoint the Plaintiff on March 10, 201, and did not take any subsequent measures subsequent thereto.

F) Article 4 (Procedures for Evaluation and Application for Review) of the Defendant’s former Teachers’ Records Evaluation Regulations provides that the principal shall notify the relevant teacher of the results of the faculty member’s evaluation deliberated by the Teachers’ Personnel Committee, and the president shall submit it to the board of directors after determining the final evaluation of the faculty member’s achievements based on the results of the evaluation of each teacher’s achievements deliberated by the Teachers’ Personnel Committee. Article 7 of the former Teachers’ Personnel Committee provides that the chairperson of the personnel committee shall organize the results of the evaluation of the transition, notify the head of the faculty member, and the head of the faculty shall recommend the appointment authority to appoint a fixed-term teacher. According to these regulations, it is difficult to view that the principal of the faculty member sent the Plaintiff a public notice on March 17, 2010 on the result of the appointment of the Plaintiff’s reappointment contract with the Plaintiff).

C. As seen earlier, even after March 2008, the Plaintiff received 3,83,333 won monthly wages from the Defendant from March 1, 2005 to February 29, 2008, since the Plaintiff’s failure to provide labor as an assistant professor was due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the failure to undergo the reinstatement procedure. As such, the Plaintiff may claim payment of the entire amount of wages that the Plaintiff could have received when he continued to provide labor under Article 538(1) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da626, Dec. 22, 1981). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant on March 1, 2005 to February 29, 208 as the monthly salary from the Defendant from February 25, 2008.

2. Under the Plaintiff’s request, unpaid wages of KRW 91,99,92 ( KRW 3,833,333 x 24 months) and the Defendant is obligated to pay wages calculated at the rate of KRW 3,833,333 per month from February 26, 2010 following the last wage payment date until March 9, 2012, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act until March 9, 2012, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the day on which the full payment is made, as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 3,83,333 per month from March 1, 2010 to the time when the decision on whether to renew the contract with the Plaintiff is made.

D. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's dismissal of this case against the plaintiff by abusing or abusing discretion was made, and that it constitutes a tort, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to compensate for 50,000,000 won as consolation money.

2) Generally, in cases where an employer’s unfavorable disposition such as dismissal against workers is judged to be null and void, such unfavorable disposition such as dismissal can not immediately constitute a tort. However, it is objectively clear that the employer intentionally mobilized the means of disciplinary action on the ground of a nominal dismissal, etc. under the intent to find workers at the workplace without any grounds such as disciplinary dismissal, or that any fact on the ground of dismissal, etc. does not constitute a ground for disciplinary action such as rules of employment or cannot be considered a ground for disciplinary action, and even if he paid a full attention, he could easily recognize such circumstance. As such, if the employer intentionally or negligently recognized the dismissal of workers due to unfair dismissal, he/she is obligated to compensate for the mental suffering of workers caused by the establishment of tort, and thus, he/she did not constitute a ground for removal without any reason for dismissal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da6823, Apr. 23, 196).

E. The plaintiff claims for consolation money due to rejection of reinstatement or rejection of re-contract review (1). Since the dismissal disposition of this case is null and void, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's restoration to the status of the assistant professor of the digital image department at ○○ University, which constitutes a tort and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 50,000,000. 2) The plaintiff was dismissed from the defendant on February 21, 2007, but the decision of provisional disposition is followed.

By February 29, 2008, the status of a contracting teacher was maintained until February 29, 2008, the judgment confirming the invalidity of the dismissal disposition of this case was finalized by the Supreme Court on April 23, 2009, and the defendant, even after the final and conclusive judgment of the above Supreme Court, filed the instant lawsuit on September 23, 2009, when the plaintiff did not take any specific measures with regard to the contract for reappointment with the plaintiff at the request of the plaintiff three times more than once, the plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 23, 2009. After entering the procedure for examination of reappointment after January 29, 2010 during the lawsuit of this case, the teachers' personnel committee was held on March 10, 201, and the principal of the teaching affairs held on March 10, 2010 to determine whether

17. The facts that only notified the result of the review of the reappointment as a person and that there was no subsequent measure subsequent thereto are as seen earlier.

3) As above, inasmuch as the judgment confirming the invalidity of the dismissal disposition of this case against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, the Defendant is obligated to return the Plaintiff to the status of assistant professor and inform the Plaintiff of the fixed-term conversion review or re-contract procedures and review whether or not the Plaintiff has been made. However, in light of the fact that the time and circumstances leading to the Plaintiff’s lawsuit after the final and conclusive judgment of the above Supreme Court, and the legal professionals’ present legal status of the Plaintiff cannot be easily known as to the Plaintiff’s present legal status, it is difficult to deem that the aforementioned circumstance alleged by the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for tort against the Defendant. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit

바. 방실침입 및 업무방해로 인한 위자료 청구1 ) 원고가 2007. 6. 11. 서울중앙지방법원에서 ' 피고는 원고가 서울캠퍼스 내 연구실에 출입하지 못하게 하는 등의 교수로서의 업무를 수행하는 것을 방해하여서는 아니된다 ' 는 등의 가처분 결정을 받은 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 갑 제3호증의 각 호의 기재에 의하면, ○○○대학교 사무처장 ■■■은 2007. 7. 12. 원고가 부천캠퍼스 내 교수연 구실을 비운 틈을 타서 위 대학교 직원들을 위 연구실에 들어가게 하여 원고의 물품 등을 포장하여 반출하도록 함으로써 원고의 연구 및 강의 업무를 방해한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위와 같은 ■■■의 행위는 불법행위에 해당하고, 피고는 위 ■■■의 사용자로서 원고에 대하여 손해배상책임을 부담한다 .

2 ) 나아가, 손해배상액수에 관하여 보건대, 위 방실침입 및 업무방해의 내용과 정도에 위 ■■■ 이 위와 같은 행동을 한 것은 위 대학교의 재택근무명령을 집행하기 위한 것으로 불가피한 측면이 있는 점, 위 대학교에서 원고에게 위 연구실의 명도를 요구한 것이 위 가처분의 효력에 반하는 것으로는 보이지 않는 점, ■■■은 원고의 항의를 받고 다시 위 물품 등을 위 연구실에 옮겨 놓은 점 등을 참작하면, 위자료 액수는 1, 000, 000원으로 정함이 상당하다 .

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from July 12, 2007, which is the date of the first instance judgment, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist the scope of its performance obligation, to the extent of its performance obligation, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

G. As to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is based on the condition that the plaintiff's conjunctive claim on March 17, 2010, the plaintiff's claim to nullify the invalidity of the disposition rejecting re-employment as of March 17, 2010, the plaintiff's claim to confirm the status of assistant professor for two years, and the plaintiff's main claim to compensate for damages equivalent to the above part is all dismissed. As such, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is accepted without any separate determination as to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim such as consolation money due to unfair dismissal, the claim for consolation money due to rejection of re-contract, and the claim for consolation money due to obstruction

Therefore, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Defendant was in the position of assistant professor of the digital image department at ○○ University established and operated by the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 92,99,92 (amounting to KRW 91,99,992 + KRW 1,000,000 for consolation money due to loss and obstruction of business + KRW 91,99,00 for unpaid wages, KRW 5% per annum from February 26, 2010 to March 9, 2012, KRW 5% per annum, KRW 1,000 for consolation money, and KRW 00 from July 12, 2007 to August 31, 2010; and KRW 20% per annum from each of the following day to the date of full payment; and KRW 30 to March 31, 200 for delay damages calculated from March 31, 201.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the confirmation of the status of assistant professor and the above additional payment order in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim of confirmation of the status of assistant professor shall be accepted, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay the above additional amount, and the plaintiff's remaining appeal shall be dismissed as

Judges

Judges fixed-ranking of the presiding judge

Judges Kim Uniform-type

Judges Kim Sang-woo

Note tin

(1) Article 33 (Lifelong Educational Establishment in the Form of Cyber Colleges) (3) Academic background and study equivalent to those of junior college or university graduates pursuant to paragraph (1).

Where a cyber college-type lifelong educational establishment recognized as above is intended to be established, it shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

The Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development shall obtain authorization from the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development. Where he/she intends to close it, all educational persons.

Any report to the Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be made.

2) A person who establishes and operates a distance college-type lifelong educational establishment under Article 33(3) of the Regulations on the Establishment and Operation of a distance college-type lifelong educational establishment and the city thereof.

Articles 28, 29, 31, and 70 of the Private School Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the snow.

3) Article 55 (Organization, Teaching Staff, etc. of Cyber Colleges) (1) Cyber Colleges shall have departments or faculties, and teaching staff shall have departments or faculties.

in principle, it shall be affiliated with the Corporation.

(2) A cyber college shall have at least one full-time teacher and one assistant teacher for each major in a department or a faculty, and facilitate them.

It shall secure concurrent teachers, part-time lecturers, etc. necessary for one class.

(3) The Regulations on the Standards, etc. for Qualification of Professors shall apply mutatis mutandis to the qualifications for teachers and assistant instructors.

(4) Where a person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss teachers of a cyber college appoints or dismisses such teachers, he/she shall teach such fact within seven days after such appointment or dismissal.

reports to the Minister of Home Affairs.

4) Article 1 (Purpose) of this Decree is a professor, associate professor, assistant professor, or full-time lecturer (hereinafter referred to as “the teaching”) pursuant to Article 16 of the Higher Education Act.

The purpose of this Act is to prescribe matters concerning the qualification standards and recognition of qualifications for assistant instructors.

5) The above provisions of the Private School Act also apply mutatis mutandis to the above provisions of the Private School Act, as also amended by Act No. 8640, Oct. 17, 2007

Article 22-2 was newly established for the first time.

6) (Definition) (1) For the purpose of this Act, the term “private school” means a juristic person other than a school juristic person or public organization, or any other private person.

section 2(2) of the Early Childhood Education Act, Article 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and Article 2 of the Higher Education Act;

a school means a school.

7) The evaluation of achievements by full-time faculty members shall be conducted with the rate of new admission registration, the rate of transfer registration, the rate of re-registration of students, the number of teaching times, the degree of satisfaction with classes, and the

The items such as the achievement rate of target comparison were assessed as grades.

8) The Defendant is not necessarily obligated to conclude a renewal contract with the Plaintiff.

19) The Defendant is not necessarily obligated to conclude a renewal contract with the Plaintiff.

10) At the date for preparatory pleading of the first instance court, the presiding judge is re-appointed to the plaintiff as of March 17, 2010 to the defendant's attorney at the date for preparatory pleading of the first instance court

On March 17, 2010, the defendant's attorney examined whether there was a rejection disposition and re-appointed against the plaintiff on March 17, 2010.

There was no resolution of the board of directors, and there was no decision of rejection.