Whether a person who is qualified as a teacher and is employed as an instructor in lieu of a vacant teacher and has worked for the same full-time as the teacher in charge of the duties of the teacher is subject to the guarantee of status under the main sentence of Article 56 (1) of the Private School Act as well as the dismissal from office or office due to the abolition of office or the excess under the proviso of Article 56

Article 56 of the Private School Act is a provision for guaranteeing the status of a teacher of a private school. Thus, it is applicable only to a teacher appointed through an appointment procedure as provided in Article 53-2 of the Private School Act, and it is not in principle to an instructor who is not a teacher. However, according to Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act, if an educational foundation employs a person who is qualified as a teacher as provided in Article 79 of the Education Act and Article 52 of the Private School Act as an assistant to assist the duties of a teacher and ordinarily employs a teacher as the name of an instructor instead of a vacant teacher, if he/she allows the teacher to work in the same manner as a teacher instead of a vacant teacher, it is subject to Article 56 of the Private School Act corresponding to the teacher even if he/she is an instructor. Thus, an ordinary instructor working in such a case shall be dismissed as well as a class, department, or assistant as provided in the proviso of the same paragraph.

Articles 52 and 56 of the Private School Act, Article 79 of the Education Act, Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4548, Feb. 14, 1989) (Law No. 1991, 1589) (Law No. 1591, May 14, 1991) (Gong1991, 1616)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant

Attorney Shin Chang-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na28547 delivered on December 14, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. Article 56 of the Private School Act provides for the guarantee of the status of a teacher of a private school. Thus, it is applicable only to a teacher appointed through an appointment procedure as provided in Article 53-2 of the Private School Act, and it is not applicable in principle to an instructor who is not a teacher. However, according to Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act, if an educational foundation employs a teacher as an assistant to assist a teacher's duties, instead of a vacant teacher, a teacher who is qualified as a teacher as provided in Article 79 of the Education Act and Article 52 of the Private School Act is employed as an assistant to assist the teacher's duties and allows the teacher to work for the same full time as the teacher's duties, then Article 56 of the Private School Act shall apply to an instructor even if he is an instructor (Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2243 delivered on February 14, 1989). Thus, a full-time lecturer in such case shall not be subject to the guarantee of status under the main sentence of paragraph (1) of the same Article, but shall be dismissed.

2. According to the records, all of the plaintiffs are qualified as secondary school teachers.

2.10. From October to October 16 of the same year, the defendant was employed in the name of a lecturer or a temporary teacher at the defendantsan Welfare Middle School, but all of them are required to fill the vacancy. Even if the contents of their duties are in office, they have been in charge of the same tasks as the previous teachers, such as regular part-time work, teachers' and staff-time attending school, teachers' and staff-time attending school, attending school, and attending school during vacations, even if they have been in charge of the same tasks as the previous teachers, such as regular part-time work, teachers' and staff-time duty, and during vacations, it can be acknowledged that the defendant employed the plaintiffs as an instructor who is not a regular teacher, and therefore, it can be easily seen that the employment of the plaintiffs as an instructor who is not a regular teacher is solely for personnel expenses. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' rights and duties are equivalent to the instructors who work at all times rather than a simple instructor, and therefore, they are subject to dismissal due to the proviso of Article 56 (1) of the Private School

The court below determined otherwise that the plaintiffs' status as a mere instructor is not subject to dismissal cannot be deemed to have committed unlawful acts affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 56 of the Private School Act or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and the appeal of this case, which seems to include the same purport, is reasonable.

3. Therefore, without examining the defendant's other grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)