2014Nu26 Revocation of a disposition rejecting re-election

A

President of Gangwon University

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2013Guhap671 Decided November 8, 2013

October 15, 2014

November 26, 2014

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of revocation of reappointment against the plaintiff on July 27, 2012.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for our court's explanation on this case is as stated in the part concerning the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this case is cited pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Litigation Act. (Unless there are special circumstances that the head of a university's personnel committee would have substantially lost validity by social norms, the act of refusing appointment on the ground that he/she rejected the motion for appointment by a university personnel committee does not constitute deviation from the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power, barring special circumstances that it would have remarkably lost validity by social norms. However, the fact that the defendant's former teacher appointment guidelines and evaluation of achievements is somewhat unclear or inadequate, but the fact that the defendant's former teacher appointment guidelines and evaluation of his/her achievements are not clear and insufficient, because it is difficult to establish a completely numerical and measurable criteria because of its nature, it is difficult to determine the number of subjective factors that the university refused appointment by taking into account the high level of knowledge, ability, personality, etc. of the relevant teacher.)

2. Additional determination

(a) Authority to examine the Appointment Review Committee;

Although the plaintiff could only deliberate on the reappointment of the university personnel committee in accordance with the appointment rules of the Public Educational Officials Act and the defendant's former teachers, the defendant asserts that the defendant has committed an illegal act to deliberate on the reappointment of the plaintiff to the appointment examination committee without any authority.

However, since the Defendant held a university personnel committee on July 19, 2012 and deliberated on the part of the Plaintiff’s reappointment, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant violated the Public Educational Officials Act and the former teachers appointment regulations.

In addition, Article 17 (6) of the Defendant’s former Teachers Appointment Regulations provides that “other matters concerning the criteria, procedures, etc. for re-election shall be separately determined by the president,” which provides a separate basis for the establishment of an appointment review committee. Moreover, the appointment review committee does not directly exercise the authority of the appointment review prescribed by the Public Educational Officials Act, but rather performs its functions to assist the deliberation of the university personnel committee by collecting and submitting to the university personnel committee the judgment data on the matters concerning the education, guidance, and academic studies of the persons eligible for re-election (the actual system, even though the appointment review committee assessed the Plaintiff’s achievements below the standard points, one of the members of the university personnel committee participated in the university personnel committee). The Plaintiff’s assertion that the examination of the appointment review committee itself is unlawful on other premise is without merit.

B. Whether there is a lack of opportunity to vindicate

Although the Public Educational Officials Act provides that the subject shall be given an opportunity to vindicate in the course of deliberation on reappointment (Article 11-3(5)), the defendant's appointment review committee did not give any opportunity to vindicate to the plaintiff in the course of examining whether he/she is in office or not (Article 11-3(5)).

However, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in the evidence Nos. 10 and 12, the defendant may determine on June 11, 2012 that he/she notified the plaintiff that he/she is subject to the revocation of reappointment due to his/her failure to attain his/her performance evaluation scores, thereby attending the university personnel committee to state his/her opinion or providing a written guidance that he/she may present his/her opinion. Therefore, it did not err by violating the Educational Officials

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, since the appointment review committee is an organization assisting the deliberation of the university personnel committee, the provisions regarding the provision of an opportunity to vindicate the public educational officials cannot be applied. Article 20 of the former Guidelines for the Appointment Review of Faculty Members requires a person subject to reappointment to submit various materials necessary for the examination of reappointment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff also received a sufficient opportunity to vindicate the fact that he/she submitted materials related to the evaluation of his/her achievements before the examination by the appointment review committee. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are fully borne by the plaintiff who has lost.

First Instance (Presiding Judge)

Kim Jong-tae

Sym