Whether Article 56 of the Private School Act applies to cases where a person qualified as a teacher allows him/her to perform the duties of a teacher under an expected to be appointed as a full-time teacher after undergoing regular appointment procedures (affirmative)

Article 56 of the Private School Act shall not apply to those who are appointed through appointment procedures provided for in Article 53-2 of the same Act, and shall not apply to those who are in charge of the duties of teachers without undergoing prescribed appointment procedures. However, if a school foundation had a person who is qualified as a teacher under Article 79 of the Education Act and Article 52 of the Private School Act work full-time as a teacher, even before a regular appointment procedure is completed, it shall be deemed that the person has the right to be guaranteed a status guarantee under Article 56 of the Private School Act as corresponding to the teacher even if he is employed as a temporary teacher even before a regular appointment procedure is completed (if a person who is qualified as a teacher is employed as a temporary teacher and let him take charge of most of the duties of a teacher, it shall also be granted a status guarantee equivalent to the teacher, and it shall be null and void only by a resolution of the board of directors without undergoing disciplinary procedures provided for in the Private School Act).

Articles 53-2 (1) and 56 of the Private School Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Da2243 delivered on February 14, 1989 (Gong1989, 407) Supreme Court Decision 91Da3000 delivered on May 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1632), Supreme Court Decision 94Da47926 delivered on June 16, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2499)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Jeong Sung-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant School Foundation (Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorney Shin Chang-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na32692 delivered on April 23, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Review of the reasoning of the judgment below

(A) Article 56 of the Private School Act provides that "No teacher of a private school shall be subject to any unfavorable measure, such as temporary retirement from office, dismissal from office, etc., against his/her will, and shall not be subject to any advice." This provision aims at guaranteeing the status of a teacher, so it applies only to a teacher appointed through an appointment procedure provided for in Article 53-2 of the Private School Act, and it does not apply to a person in charge of a teacher's duties without undergoing an appointment procedure provided for in the Act. However, if a school foundation allows a person qualified as a teacher under Article 79 of the Education Act and Article 52 of the Private School Act to work full-time as a teacher under an expected to be appointed full-time, even before the regular appointment procedure is completed, it shall be deemed that he/she has the right to receive a status guarantee provided for in Article 56 of the Private School Act, corresponding to the regular appointment procedure (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da47969, Jun. 16, 1995; 209Da3194989.

(B) According to the evidence of its employment, the defendant was employed from September 27, 1994; from December 7, 1994; from March 2, 1995; from March 2, 1995; and from March 2, 1995, the plaintiffs 3, and 4 employed respectively as temporary teachers to the Young High School under the defendant's jurisdiction; and they did not follow the procedures for appointment of teachers, such as the resolution of board of directors under Article 53-2 (1) 1 and Article 54 of the Private School Act; or did not report the appointment of teachers to the competent authorities; the plaintiffs were all dismissed by the resolution of the board of directors of the defendant on July 22, 1995; the plaintiffs were employed under the premise that they will be appointed as regular teachers to the Young High School under the defendant's jurisdiction without setting the term of employment; the plaintiffs did not take charge of the same duties as regular teachers, teachers, etc.; but they did not take charge of the same duties as regular teachers, etc.

(C) Unless they undergo the prescribed appointment procedure, the plaintiffs could not obtain the status of regular teachers. However, in light of the fact that there is no provision regarding the appointment and dismissal of temporary teachers prior to the appointment as regular teachers, and there is no evidence to deem the above appointment and dismissal of temporary teachers as the practice of appointment of private school teachers, the plaintiffs, who are qualified as teachers under the Educational Act and the Private School Act, have the right to guarantee the status of the teachers under Article 56 of the Private School Act, corresponding to the teacher's term of appointment, if the defendant, who is actually engaged in full-time work as a teacher, has the plaintiffs to receive the status guarantee under Article 56 of the Private School Act, and thus, the dismissal disposition against the plaintiffs on July 22, 1995 was made against their own will without undergoing the disciplinary procedure under the Private School Act, such as the disciplinary resolution of the teachers' disciplinary committee, and it is invalid.

2. In light of the legal principles and records set forth in the Supreme Court decisions cited by the court below, the fact-finding and decision of the court below are justifiable, and there is no error of excessively expanding the interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision on temporary teachers status as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Although the defendant filed an appeal against the part of the judgment below ordering the payment of wages, the defendant did not state the grounds for the appeal in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief.

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

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)