logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.04 2015나2054354
위약금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Defendant entered into an agreement to revitalize the operation of a school (hereinafter “instant university”) with the aim of providing higher education to train the human resources who will lead the era of cultural preference and internationalization based on the spirit of the model reading (hereinafter “instant university”).

(2) On October 2012, the Board of Audit and Inspection: (a) deemed that the university of this case has committed unlawful acts, such as granting credits and degrees to students through the implementation of reduction classes; and (b) sent a written request for disposition to the Ministry of Education.

3) From May 9, 2013, the Ministry of Education conducted an on-site investigation into the instant university with the Defendant and the instant university for both days. As a result, the Defendant purchased land at the Plaintiff’s expense and left the land alone without completing the registration of transfer of ownership for four years and five months, and determined that there was a fact that the Defendant revenue was executed on the corporate accounting without a resolution of the board of directors, and the remaining amount was managed as basic property for profit, and did not transfer it to the school expense account. (iv) Meanwhile, on May 18, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the promotion of the operation of the instant university (hereinafter “the instant agreement”) with the Defendant on the same day, and the title of appointment was “the vice-participating assistant secretary acting on behalf of the head of the instant university,” and the period of appointment “from May 18, 2013 to August 31, 2017,” and “the annual salary of KRW 84 million.”

On June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff drafted a contract for the appointment of teaching staff with the Defendant, including the name of appointment as associate professor; the term of appointment from June 5, 2013 to August 31, 2014; and the term of taking the responsibility as “nine hours per week”.

In the above contract, if the number of new students belonging to the above contract falls short of 15 doctor's degree and 15 master's degree at the end of the corresponding semester, this contract shall be entered into at the end of each semester.

arrow