1. A person who intends to obtain permission for the establishment of a school juristic person

Appeals Review Committee for Teachers

Intervenor joining the Defendant

August 30, 2011

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap32464 decided April 14, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The decision made by the Defendant on June 7, 2010 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor on the claim for nullification of the new appointment revocation disposition shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows. The part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is written as follows, and it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the Intervenor to the Intervenor (hereinafter the Intervenor) among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter the Intervenor) except for the addition of the judgment of the Plaintiff’s new argument as stated in paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

B. Parts of scraping

(1) The second 14th 14th son of the judgment of the court of first instance is the “official music division”.

(2) The following shall be added at the end of 11th day of the first instance judgment:

Article 35(3) of the Plaintiff’s Articles of Incorporation is binding on Nonparty 1 (Non-Party 1, the president of ○○ University) during the period in which the new appointment procedure was conducted. According to the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation, the matters concerning general school affairs may be represented by the vice president of the school until the president’s deputy minister is appointed. However, solely on such circumstance, it is difficult to recognize that the instant letter of proposal was written voluntarily by Nonparty 2 against the intention of Nonparty 1, the president of ○ University or the lawful deputy minister at the time of appointment of the president.).

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that, even if the appointment of the intervenor is valid, the intervenor was appointed for a period of one year from September 1, 2008, and was later reappointed. Thus, the contractual relationship between the intervenor and the plaintiff school juristic person was terminated on August 31, 2009.

B. The intervenor was newly appointed on September 1, 2008 on the one-year period of employment, and the period of employment expires on August 31, 2009. However, the intervenor, after August 31, 2009, shall consider the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of oral arguments, i.e., the following circumstances: (a) the intervenor, while working for ○○ University; (b) the intervenor, after his demotion, prepared a written official document at the school department or prepared a work log and received remuneration from the plaintiff school foundation; (c) the plaintiff's articles of incorporation, Article 35 (4) of the plaintiff's school foundation's articles of incorporation, provides that the teacher may apply for reappointment at least four months prior to the expiration of the period of employment; and (d) the plaintiff's school foundation and the plaintiff's foundation shall not be notified of his intention not to be reappointed if he decided not to be reappointed until two months prior to the expiration of the period of employment; and (d) the plaintiff's foundation shall not be notified of the appointment period of the plaintiff's full-time lecturer.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Sung Pung-tae (Presiding Judge)