2014Nu58107. Decision and revocation of the Appeal Committee for Teachers

A

Appeals Review Committee for Teachers

B Educational Foundation

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap50866 decided July 10, 2014

oly 10, 15

November 19, 2014

1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The decision of dismissal made by the Defendant on January 15, 2014 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant on the revocation of the disposition rejecting the reappointment (2013-427) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasons for this court's explanation are as follows, except for the judgment on the plaintiff's additional arguments in the trial and the judgment on the argument that the defendant joining the defendant emphasizes in particular or re-convened in this court, the reasons for this court's explanation are as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Defendant renounced the appeal against the judgment of the first instance, the Intervenor appealed against this, and the Defendant did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal, and did not submit the grounds for appeal by the deadline for submission of the grounds for appeal. Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal in this case by the Intervenor is unlawful.

B. Determination

According to the records of this case, the judgment of the court of first instance that accepted the plaintiff's claim on July 10, 2014 was rendered, and the original copy of the judgment reached the defendant on July 14, 2014, and the defendant joining the defendant on July 10, 2014, respectively, and the defendant joining the defendant on July 22, 2014 submitted a petition of appeal to the effect that the court of first instance seeks the revocation of the judgment of the court of first instance on July 22, 2014, and the defendant submitted a petition of appeal to the effect that he/she waived the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance on September 29,

However, not only a supplementary intervention under Article 16 of the Administrative Litigation Act, but also a case where a supplementary intervention made by an intervenor in an administrative litigation does not fall under a third party participation as stipulated in Article 16 of the Administrative Litigation Act, in light of the nature of the administrative litigation, such participation is a co-litigation supplementary intervention as stipulated in Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du13729, Mar. 28, 2013). Therefore, even if the original party waives the right to appeal and withdraws an appeal after the supplementary intervenor filed an appeal, the supplementary intervenor’s appeal shall remain effective (see Supreme Court Decision 66Nu96, Apr. 25, 196).

In addition, in an administrative litigation case applied mutatis mutandis by the Civil Procedure Act, only if the petition of appeal did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal or did not submit the grounds for appeal by the deadline for submission of the statement of grounds of appeal, the appeal shall not be deemed unlawful.

3. Judgment on the argument of the Intervenor joining the Defendant

A. Defendant’s assertion

In the instant protocol of mediation, considering that the Plaintiff’s position as research professor was confirmed from March 201, and the Intervenor’s Intervenor paid the Plaintiff wages from March 201 to March 201, 201, the Intervenor’s Intervenor decided to review the research business records from March 17, 201, in which the Plaintiff was reinstated to determine whether to be reappointed as of August 17, 201, and notified the Plaintiff. However, since the Plaintiff failed to submit a research business record meeting the requirements prescribed in the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff, it is legitimate to reject the Plaintiff’s reappointment).

B. Determination

Article 19(1) of the Regulations on the Evaluation of Faculty Members of the University provides that the Plaintiff shall be reappointed to the university of this case on March 1, 201 to August 28, 2011. Rather, the conciliation of this case was conducted on June 28, 201. ② Article 19(1) of the Regulations on the Evaluation of Faculty Members of the University provides that the term of appointment of assistant professors shall be subject to evaluation for the last four years, 160 points in educational work, 300 points in research work, 160 points in school work, and 160 points in school work, which are less than 6 months, shall be deemed to be excessively unfavorable to the Plaintiff, ③ Article 39(1) of the Regulations on the Management of Faculty Members of the University of this case shall not be excessively unfavorable to the Plaintiff. In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the term of appointment of assistant professors is 160 points in research work, which is 10 months in school and 20 months in research field, which is excessively published within the term of study.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant assistant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and assistant

Judges fixed-type

Judge Lee Young-young

1) The meaning of the abbreviationd language used below is the same as that of the first instance judgment.