[1] Legal nature of the act of appointing an assistant professor of a private school as an associate professor

[2] Whether the appointment authority's discretionary act is decided upon expiration of the term of appointment for private university faculty members (affirmative)

[1] The legal nature of a contract for the appointment of a private school teacher is not different from the private law employment contract, and the act of appointing a person who has been appointed as an assistant professor as an associate professor at the same university is not merely an act of promotion based on the appointment of an assistant professor, but an act of establishing a new status relationship in which a person is appointed as

[2] If a teacher of a private university appointed for a fixed period under Article 53-2 (3) of the Private School Act does not have any provision that imposes an obligation to re-appoint a school juristic person’s articles of association or personnel regulations, his status as a university faculty member naturally terminates due to the expiration of the term of appointment, and the university professor, etc. under the Education Act demands that the university professor, etc. have high level of professional knowledge and ability and personality, and when the term of appointment expires, the appointment authority should decide whether to re-appoint a teacher whose term of appointment expires in consideration of such various circumstances. Thus, whether to re-appoint

[1] Article 53-2 (3) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 5274 of Jan. 13, 1997); Article 655 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 53-2 (3) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 5274 of Jan. 13, 1997)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da11689 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong1993Ha, 2793), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu487 delivered on September 10, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2793) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da12852 delivered on October 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2976), Supreme Court Decision 93Da5425 delivered on January 20, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 882), Supreme Court Decision 96Da7069 delivered on June 27, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2315), Supreme Court Decision 94Da46479 delivered on November 16, 197

Plaintiff (Law Firm Seo-dong Law Office, Attorneys Kim Chang-joon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

School Foundation Pump University (Attorney Go-do et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na31439 delivered on May 27, 1997

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

The legal nature of contracts for the appointment of private school teachers is not different from private law employment contracts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da55425, Jan. 20, 1995; 95Da11689, Jul. 30, 1996); the act of appointing a person who is an associate professor at the same university as an associate professor at the same university is not an act of simply promoting appointment based on the act of assistant professor, but an act of establishing a new status relationship with which a person who is a associate professor is appointed as an associate professor at the same university (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu487, Sept. 10, 1993; 95Da11689, Jul. 30, 1996); and if there is no provision that grants the duty of the articles of association or personnel regulations for a school juristic person, the act of appointing a university must be determined as an associate professor at the expiration of the appointment period under the Private School Act. 97.

In the same purport, the court below held that the appointment of a teacher shall be at the discretion of the appointing authority as a party to a judicial contract, unless there are circumstances such as the provision that the appointment of a teacher is mandatory to be promoted to the Private School Act or the articles of incorporation or personnel regulations of the educational foundation, even if all of the appointment requirements for promotion are met, it is proper to determine that the appointment authority cannot be deemed to have a duty to appoint the teacher, and it shall not be deemed that there

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

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)