Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Teachers Appeals Review Committee (Law Firm, Attorneys Han Han-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

School Foundation Papun Private Teaching Institutes (Law Firm Geon, Attorneys Hong U.S., et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 4, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision made by the Defendant on April 8, 2015 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “ Intervenor”) on the revocation of revocation of reappointment shall be revoked.

1. Details of the decision;

A. The Intervenor is a school foundation operating ○ University located in Youngcheon-gu, Youngcheon-do (hereinafter “instant University”).

B. Since the Plaintiff was newly appointed as an electronic and full-time lecturer on March 1, 1997 at the pertinent university, and was promoted to the same department as and an assistant professor on March 1, 1999, the Plaintiff served as an information and communications department, digital image content department, U-care department, and assistant professor from March 1, 2010, and served as an hotel tourist outside of a hotel and an assistant professor after the abolition of the hotel tourist outside of a year 201.

C. On October 31, 2014, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of his appointment term expires on February 28, 2015, and the Plaintiff applied for reappointment to the Intervenor on November 13, 2014.

D. On December 9, 2014, the president of the university of this case notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the results subject to the faculty evaluation of the Plaintiff’s position fall short of 80 points out of 80 points (from November 1, 2013 to October 31, 2014 during the period subject to the faculty evaluation; 8 out of 60 points in the items subject to the research activities; 0 points in the items subject to the evaluation; 1 out of 20 out of the 60 out of the full score; and 1 out of the 20 out of the full score in the student guidance); and the Plaintiff raised an objection against the results of the faculty evaluation to the president on the 17th of the same month.

E. On December 24, 2014, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the result of the review of teacher service with the same content as before, and notified the Plaintiff of the rejection of reappointment (hereinafter “instant rejection”) on December 31, 201.

F. On January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition review against the Defendant regarding the refusal of reappointment, but the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition (hereinafter “instant decision”) on April 8, 2015.

G. Meanwhile, according to the instant university teachers appointment provision, the appointment of teachers is determined by the Intervenor’s board of directors.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 3 through 12 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 2-2 (B) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the litigation requirements

In light of the fact that the intervenor did not attend the university of this case after hotel tour appearance and closure, and did not leave the university of this case and operated a private enterprise, it should be deemed that the plaintiff only had the intention to receive wages from the university of this case at the time of refusal of reappointment, but did not have the true intention to work as assistant professor at the university of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's application for reappointment is null and void, and therefore, the plaintiff has no legal interest to cancel the decision of this case.

Although there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff sent to another university or operated a private company after the hotel tourist outside ceremony and the closure, it cannot be concluded that there is no possibility that the hotel tourist outside ceremony or the electronic or similar department, which the Plaintiff originally held, would be re-established, or that there is no possibility that the Plaintiff would be employed in another department already established upon the Plaintiff’s consent to change his major, such fact alone cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff did not intend to work as an assistant professor at the university of this case at the time of the refusal of reappointment. Accordingly, the above assertion by the prior intervenor cannot be accepted on a different premise.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The rejection of reappointment of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, and the decision of this case shall be revoked.

1) At the time of the first appointment, the Plaintiff was promised to guarantee retirement age from the Nonparty, the first president of the Intervenor, and thus, the Plaintiff is not a person subject to examination for reappointment.

2) Even if not, there is no ground to deem that the Plaintiff’s term of office expires on February 28, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiff is not subject to examination for reappointment at the time of refusal of reappointment.

3) Although the hotel tourist conference division was abolished in 201, the Plaintiff did not receive assignment and lectures at all, it is unreasonable to consider the student guidance items as the assessment items and mark 20 points or marks. Moreover, it is unreasonable to evaluate the Plaintiff’s research activities as 8 points.

4) It is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to take into account the result of the teachers’ work evaluation for one year solely based on the period from November 1, 2013 to October 31, 2014, even though it had worked in the instant university for a long time.

5) The Intervenor did not fully inform the Plaintiff of the regulations on the evaluation of teachers’ services and the review of reappointment, and thus, the Plaintiff was not substantially guaranteed the opportunity to state its opinion in preparation for the evaluation of teachers’ services or in the examination of reappointment.

(b) Markets:

1) There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was promised to guarantee retirement age from the Nonparty at the time of the initial appointment, and even if such fact is acknowledged, according to the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and the entire pleadings, Article 21 of the Intervenor’s Teachers Personnel Management Regulations provides that “the retirement age security teachers shall be appointed by the chief director following the deliberation of the Teachers Personnel Committee, the proposal of the president, and the resolution of the board of directors from among the persons who are promoted from associate professors to professors or newly employed professors whose contract period expires.” Thus, insofar as the Plaintiff is not appointed as the retirement age security teacher following the procedures in accordance with the Teachers Personnel Management Regulations after promoting the Plaintiff as professors, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff as still subject to review of reappointment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’

2) According to the purport of Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, Eul evidence 2-1 (Na No. 27-2), Eul evidence 2-1, and Eul evidence 27-1, as a whole, Article 10 of the University Personnel Management Regulations provides that "the period of appointment of each class of teaching staff shall be governed by the articles of incorporation." However, Article 43 (2) of the Intervenor's articles of incorporation of the Intervenor provides that "four years for the term of office of assistant professor" before January 16, 2013. On the other hand, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor made a contract for appointment of a full-time lecturer with the contract term of March 1, 1998 as of February 28, 199, and the contract term of the full-time lecturer employment as of March 28, 2001 as the contract term of the contract of March 28, 2003 and the appointment of an assistant professor again as of February 29, 2003.

① Article 53-2(3) of the Private School Act provides that “A college educational institution’s faculty member may be appointed under the conditions stipulated by the articles of incorporation, such as the period of service, salary, working conditions, and performance and performance agreement.” ② Articles of incorporation and personnel management regulations apply not only to the faculty member who has been employed at the time of the enactment of the regulations, but also to the teachers or staff organizations newly appointed or newly organized, based on the autonomy of the university guaranteed by the Constitution. ③ Meanwhile, in light of the fact that Article 53-2(3) of the Private School Act and Article 53-2(3) of the Articles of incorporation and the personnel management regulations of the Private School Act are mandatory provisions on the terms of office of the faculty member, the term of office, i.e., the contents of the Plaintiff’s term of office, shall not be effective against Article 53-2(3) of the Private School Act.

Ultimately, at the time of appointment as an assistant professor on March 1, 1999, the Plaintiff was in a four-year term of office in accordance with the articles of association. Since there was no express procedure for the appointment of the Plaintiff thereafter, the Plaintiff continued to serve at the university of this case and received the reappointment every four years at implied or late 4 years. In other words, the Plaintiff’s term of office expired on February 28, 2003, and extended for four years implicitly at that time, and extended for four years on February 28, 2007 and the end of February 28, 2015, it was clear that the Plaintiff was subject to review of reappointment at the time of refusal of appointment (the Plaintiff was also subject to review of appointment after the expiration of the two-year term of office with the Intervenor on February 28, 2003). The same provision applies to the appointment of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor who continued to serve as an assistant professor after the expiration of the two-year term of employment contract with the Intervenor on February 28, 2003.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

3) According to the purport of Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 2-3 (B) and evidence 2-3 (3) of Eul evidence 2, the student guidance items are classified into each item of student counseling, school event guidance, employment guidance, and 20 points for the plaintiff. However, with respect to the guidance items for school events, it can be acknowledged that the school education evaluation rules provide that "the student instruction items are "the student's activities within and outside the school unit above the school year (sports competition, new students' original research, MT, student academic seminars, on-the-job training guidance, etc.)", and the club instruction items are "the student's activities at the school level above the school year unit", and the academic affairs are "the one allocated points per time." Thus, the school instruction points for the plaintiff are not necessarily subject to assignment and lectures. Thus, it cannot be said that the school education activity guidance items should be considered as the evaluation items of school events at the school when the school education evaluation is conducted against the plaintiff.

Meanwhile, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 2-3 (Na evidence 4), Eul evidence 3-1 (Na evidence 9), Eul evidence 3-2 (Na evidence 10) and Eul evidence 3-2 (Na evidence 10), research activity items are classified into each item of teaching method, internal and extracurricular training, thesis, academic presentation, research report, and domestic and international industry-academic cooperation. Each item's score is 10 points, 5 points for domestic and extracurricular training, 15 points for research report, 15 points for domestic and international industry-academic cooperation, and 15 points for domestic and foreign industry-academic cooperation. The plaintiff did not attend the faculty's presentation meeting on July 29, 2014 and did not receive more than 4 basic points for the plaintiff's participation in the training program on the one hand, and according to the research activity evaluation rules for teachers' participation in the study, the plaintiff's research activity items are objectively rated within 2-10 points for the research evaluation period.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

4) According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2-2 (B) and the entire pleadings, it can be acknowledged that there is no stipulation as to whether the Intervenor’s provision on the appointment of teachers ought to reflect the results of evaluation of teachers for a period of time. Thus, it is desirable to consider the results of evaluation of teachers for the entire period of time during which the Plaintiff worked in the review of reappointment with the Plaintiff. However, the mere fact that the Plaintiff considered only the results of evaluation of teachers for the one-year period immediately preceding the reappointment does not necessarily violate the regulations on the appointment of teachers. Considering the fact that the instant university has first conducted the evaluation of teachers for the first time in 2013, it is difficult to accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

5) According to the purport of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 29-1, Eul evidence 29-29-2, Eul evidence 1, 3, and Eul evidence 30-1 through 7, the intervenor notified the university professors of the regulations on the evaluation of the teacher's position at the entire faculty conference on March 3, 2014 and on two occasions on March 24, 2014, and the plaintiff was not present at that position. On the other hand, the plaintiff was notified on October 31, 2013 that his term of office expires on February 28, 2014. At the time of notification, it was stated that "the intervenor may apply for reappointment pursuant to Article 10 of the Regulations on the Appointment of Teachers, and Article 10 of the Regulations on the Appointment of Teachers provide for the purport that "the re-election was examined on the basis of the regulations on the evaluation of the teacher's position" as the intervenor's opportunity to be rejected.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Byung-soo (Presiding Judge) and Park Jong-chul

1) Although the notice of the result of teachers' job performance evaluation of Gap evidence 5 stated "36 points", the notice of the scheduled results of re-election of Eul evidence 6-2 is indicated as "32 points", and the notice of the scheduled results of re-election of Eul evidence 6-2, while the notice of the scheduled results of re-election is indicated as " Eul evidence 2-2 and 3, it can be recognized that the minimum standards for re-election of teachers of this case set at 80 points out of 200 points. Thus, if the plaintiff was unable to be assigned to a position, if it is specially adjusted to 80 points, the standard points should be 32 points according to the minimum standards for re-election for the original purpose, and if it is argued that the defendant and the intervenor claimed that the standard points are 32 points, it is apparent that the notice of teachers' job performance evaluation is a clerical error.