206 Gohap917 Damage, Appellants

1. west ○○;

2. Ma○○.

3. Lighting-○.

○ ○ Private Teaching Institutes

October 26, 2006

November 30, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 15 million won with 20% interest per annum from January 26, 2006 to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay 35,732,070 won to the plaintiff Seo-○, 37,631,550 won to the plaintiff Seo-○, and 35,360,000 won and 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the evidence of No. 1, 4 through 6, 8 through 11, and No. 10, and No. 10.

A. On March 1, 2004, the Defendant: (a) appointed Plaintiff ○○ as a leisure sport and full-time lecturer at the above university; (b) Plaintiff ○○ as the above university’s work therapy and full-time lecturer; and (c) Plaintiff ○○ as the above university’s dental hygiene and full-time lecturer (the appointment period from March 1, 2004 to February 28, 2005).

B. On January 17, 2005, the defendant, after holding a board of directors and decided not to re-appoint the plaintiffs, notified the plaintiffs on January 28, 2005 after deliberation by the teachers' personnel committee, that they will not renew the contract after the expiration of the contract period. The provisions of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 7352 of January 27, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the "former Private School Act") which was in force at the time of the above notification are as stated in the attached Table.

C. On February 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a petition review with the Appeal Committee for Teachers of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development seeking revocation of the disposition of rejection of re-contract under Paragraph (b) above. On May 16, 2005, the Appeal Committee for Teachers of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development decided to revoke both the defendant's disposition of rejection of re-contract against the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendant corporation did not comply with the procedures for reappointment under Article 52-2 (4) through (7) of the former Private School Act while taking a disposition of rejection of re-contract

D. Article 10(2) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status (amended by Act No. 7354, Jan. 27, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status") provides that "the decision of the Review Committee shall bind the person in charge of disposition." Since the decision of the Review Committee for Teachers of this case, the plaintiffs requested the defendant to be reappointed several times after the decision of the Review Committee for Teachers' Appeals was made on August 31, 2005, but the defendant must be reappointed on August 31, 2005 after three months from the date of the decision of the above decision of the Review Committee for Teachers' Appeals, the plaintiffs were reappointed as full-time instructors at universities of 10 universities (the plaintiff SOO is leisure sports, the plaintiff sium, the culture, and the plaintiff Cho-○○) (the period from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2007).

(a) Refusal of reappointment and delay in reappointment;

(1) In the event that a teacher appointed for a fixed period of service is not reappointed, the person with the authority to appoint shall notify the relevant teacher of the fact that the period of employment expires not later than four months prior to the expiration of the period of employment and that he/she may apply for deliberation on the reappointment. (2) In the event that the relevant teacher applies for deliberation on reappointment, it shall be notified to the relevant teacher not later than two months prior to the expiration date of the period of appointment by specifying his/her intention to decide whether to re-appoint the relevant teacher after deliberation on the reappointment by the teachers' personnel committee and the reason for refusal to re-appointing the relevant teacher. (3) In the process of deliberation on whether to re-appoint, the teachers' personnel committee shall provide the relevant teacher with an opportunity to present his/her opinion or submit his/her opinion in writing on the designated date of the teachers' personnel committee. However, the defendant refused the re-election without following the above legitimate procedure and the defendant's decision to revoke the disposition of rejection of the contract of this case on May 16, 2005.

(2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A) At the time of the resolution of the board of directors which would not dismiss the plaintiffs on January 17, 2005, the defendant asserts that the provisions on the reappointment of teachers under the former Private School Act shall be amended and enforced. Thus, the defendant's refusal to dismiss the plaintiffs' reappointment shall not be subject to the attached Form "former Private School Act".

However, Article 53-2 (4) through (8) of the Addenda to the former Private School Act provides that "the procedures for the reappointment of the college educational institution teachers who are appointed for a specified period at the time when this Act enters into force ( January 27, 2005)" shall be governed by the amended provisions of Article 53-2 (4) through (8). Since the plaintiffs' employment period from March 1, 2004 to February 28, 2005 was recognized as above, since the plaintiffs were in 00 universities at the time when this Act enters into force, the plaintiffs' employment period shall be governed by the amended provisions of the former Private School Act. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit. However, the defendant's appointment under the articles of incorporation of 00 university is a matter of resolution of the board of directors, and the defendant is unable to satisfy the quorum of the board of directors at the time of the decision to revoke the reappointment of the board of directors at this case, and the defendant intentionally delayed the reappointment of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendant's allegation is groundless.

B. Whether failure to allocate standard lecture hours constitutes a tort

Despite the Defendant’s duty to assign the Plaintiffs a lecture amounting to the standard lecture hours, the Plaintiffs did not assign a lecture meeting the standard lecture hours in February 2005, and did not pay wages deduction due to short of the standard lecture hours. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the amount deducted.

In full view of the whole purport of the arguments in the statement No. 13-1, No. 13-3, and No. 18, the regulation on the payment of tuition fees of the OO university shall be applied to time when the time falls short of the time of liability (the time of standard lecture).

The lecture fee shall be deducted from the salary. The former teachers' fee shall be deducted from the salary. The defendant assigned the lecture for 12 hours, the defendant assigned the plaintiff's office for 10 hours to the plaintiff's office for 2005, the plaintiff's office for 2 hours to the plaintiff's ○, and the plaintiff's office for 7 hours to the plaintiff's 00, and the amount of the lecture for 7 hours to the plaintiff's office for 200. However, it can be recognized that the amount of the lecture fee corresponding to the short time of the standard lecture is deducted from the salary. However, the defendant's obligation to assign the plaintiffs a lecture corresponding to the standard lecture hours is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above plaintiffs

3. Scope of liability for damages;

(a) An amount equivalent to the reduced wage;

When entering into a contract for reappointment with the plaintiff on August 31, 2005, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to compensate for the difference between the amount of the existing annual salary and the amount of the reduced annual salary since the annual salary of ○○○○ was reduced from 42,432,00 won to 34,407,030 won, the annual salary of 37,160,000 won to 37,160,000 won, and the annual salary of ○○○○○○○○ from 33,236,000 won to 26,00,000 won, respectively, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the difference between the amount of the previous annual salary and the amount of the reduced annual salary. In light of the purport of the arguments stated in the evidence Nos. 12 to 13, it is recognized that the defendant reduced the annual salary of the plaintiffs, but this is without merit, which is recognized to have been reduced from 205 to 26,205.

(b) consolation money;

Considering all the circumstances revealed in the arguments such as the circumstance that the defendant refused to re-appoint the plaintiffs in violation of the procedures under the former Private School Act, the consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiffs due to the defendant's tort of this case is reasonable to be determined in 15,000,000 won.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs 15 million won each and 20% interest per annum from January 26, 2006 to the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and judicial police officer

Judges Nam-sik

Judge Cho Jong-he