(a) Whether the head of a private school, the term of office of which is fixed, is retired ipso facto;

(b) Whether he/she loses his/her status in the case of paragraph (a) above;

(a) The principal of a private school whose term of office is determined in the articles of association of a school foundation based on the provisions of Article 53 (2) of the Private School Act shall be appointed by the person who has the right to appoint and dismiss the school unless he imposes an obligation to re-appoint the person whose term of office has expired or provides any basis on the requirements, etc.

B. In light of the fact that Article 52 of the Private School Act, Articles 6 and 7 of the Educational Officials Act, Article 79 of the Education Act, and Articles 53 and 53-2 of the Private School Act provide different procedures for appointment and appointment of teachers other than the principal of a private school and the principal of a private school, insofar as the principal of a private school whose term of office has expired, the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss the principal bears the duty to appoint him as a teacher other than the principal, or does not provide any basis for the requirements, etc., if there is no separate appointment procedures for a teacher other than the principal, the status as a teacher shall also be lost at the same time as the principal, unless there is

(a)Articles 53 and 53-2(a) of the Private School Act; Article 54(1)(b) of the same Act; Article 52 of the same Act; Articles 6 and 7 of the Educational Officials Act; Article 79 of the Education Act;

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Tae-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of a school foundation

Busan High Court Decision 93Na4045 delivered on December 16, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

The principal of a private school whose term of office is determined by the articles of association of a school foundation based on the provisions of Article 53 (2) of the Private School Act, unless he/she imposes an obligation to re-appoint a person whose term of office expires on the person who has the right to appoint him/her, or provides any basis on the requirements, etc., he/she shall be subject to the reappointment upon the expiration of his/her term of office, and if he/she fails to receive the term of office, he/she shall interpret

In addition, Article 53 of the Private School Act, which provides for the appointment and dismissal of the principal of a school, does not stipulate that the appointment and dismissal of teachers other than the principal of a school shall be made by a resolution of the board of directors, unlike the appointment and dismissal of a school juristic person through a resolution of the board of directors. Article 54(1) of the same Act provides that when a person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss teachers, he/she shall report to the competent agency within seven days from the date of such appointment and dismissal, and the case where he/she is dismissed due to the expiration of the term of office shall be excluded from the case where he/she is dismissed due to the expiration of the term of office.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was appointed as the principal of the above middle school from the defendant corporation that established and operated the ○○ Female Middle School and the ○○ Female High School on November 19, 198, and the principal of the above middle school was transferred to the principal of the above high school on March 25, 198 and served until November 18, 191, and completed the term of office for three years as prescribed by the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation. In the above purport, in this case, where the term of office of the defendant corporation is not provided for in the Private School Act or the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation, the plaintiff retired from office on the day following the expiration of the term of office, and further rejected the plaintiff's main claim on the ground that the procedure for retirement cannot be deemed a violation of procedure due to the absence of a resolution of the board of directors on the procedure for retirement, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Private School Act

(2) On the second ground for appeal

In light of Article 52 of the Private School Act, Articles 6 and 7 of the Educational Officials Act, Article 79 of the Education Act, and Articles 53 and 53-2 of the Private School Act, the qualifications for appointment of teachers other than the principal of a private school and the procedures for appointment shall be interpreted as if the principal of a private school, whose term of office has expired, is not subject to the duty of the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss the principal, to appoint him as a teacher other than the principal, or the requirements for such duty are not subject to any basis. If there is no separate appointment procedure as a teacher other than the principal, the status as a teacher shall be forfeited at the expiration of the term of office as the principal.

In this case where the principal, whose term of office has expired under the Private School Act or the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation, is not subject to the obligation to appoint him as a teacher other than the principal, or there is no basis for such requirements (Article 29-2 (4) of the Public Educational Officials Act applied mutatis mutandis under the Regulations on Appointment of Teachers by the defendant corporation only stipulates that the principal whose term of office has expired before his retirement age and who wishes to serve as a teacher may be appointed as a teacher in consideration of his ability and health, etc.). In the above purport, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's preliminary claim on the premise that the plaintiff who retired from his office as the principal at the expiration of his term of office still holds the status of a teacher, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Private School Act and the Public Educational Officials

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)