The case holding that the refusal or refusal of the promotion of associate professors for assistant professors who meet the qualifications for promotion of the articles of incorporation and the regulations on personnel management of school juristic persons does not constitute "disposition" under Article 9 (1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status.

The case holding that the annual standards may vary depending on various circumstances, including the fixed number of teaching staff, the number of teaching faculty members, the organization of a faculty, and the financial evaluation of school juristic persons including the school juristic person, and the fact that there is no change in the status of teaching staff merely in the articles of incorporation and the regulations on personnel management of the school juristic person operating a private university, and that the refusal or refusal of the appointment of the associate professor who meets the qualification requirements for promotion of teaching staff does not constitute "disposition" subject to an appeal review by the Appeal Committee for Teachers, on the grounds that the articles of incorporation of the school juristic person and the regulations on personnel management of teaching staff do not change in the status of teaching staff, unlike the refusal of reappointment which deprives the status of teaching staff.

Articles 7 (1) and 9 (1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status

Plaintiff (Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development

A Institute of Education for a School Foundation (Law Firm Shin & Yang, Attorney Lee Jong-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

April 18, 2006

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

The defendant's disposition rejecting a teacher's petition against the plaintiff on July 4, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the decision of this case

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4-1, 2, 3, and 5-1 through 8, respectively:

A. On March 1, 1996, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer at Young-si University (School Name omitted) located in Sejong-si, which was operated by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), and was promoted as an assistant professor on April 1, 1999, and was reappointed as an assistant professor on March 1, 2002 and January 1, 2005, but was excluded from the promotion of the associate professor, which was enforced on March 1, 2005.

B. On March 2, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a request for issuance of a statement of reasons for decline in promotion to the teachers’ personnel committee under the Intervenor’s control and reexamination pursuant to the Intervenor’s Articles of Incorporation. However, on the fourth of the same month, the Intervenor rejected the request for reexamination on the ground that there was no provision regarding the issuance of a statement of reasons for decline in promotion to the Intervenor’s articles of incorporation at the time of

C. Accordingly, on March 29, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Defendant seeking the withdrawal of promotion and the revocation of the refusal to request a retrial. On July 4, 2005, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the failure of the Intervenor to promote the Plaintiff does not constitute “disposition” under Article 9(1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status as a subject of review (hereinafter “instant decision”).

2. Whether the decision of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the legislative purport of Article 31(6) of the Constitution providing the legal principle on the status of teaching staff and the Act on the Status of Teaching Staff providing for a disciplinary action or other unfavorable action against their will to strengthen the status guarantee of teaching staff, if the plaintiff satisfies the objective qualification for promotion such as minimum working years prescribed in the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff, and the plaintiff satisfied the qualification for promotion of teaching staff, and for which four years have passed as an associate professor, the assistant professor has the right to expect the promotion and welfare and treatment as an associate professor. Accordingly, if the plaintiff is promoted as an associate professor, the welfare and treatment of the associate professor have changed, such as the guarantee of a six-year term of office, and whether to be promoted as an associate professor has a significant effect on the status as a teaching staff member. Therefore, the plaintiff's rejection or rejection of promotion against the plaintiff is against the plaintiff's above right, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff's rejection is unlawful.

B. Relevant provisions

[Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status]

Article 7 (Establishment of Teachers’ Appeals Review Committee)

(1) The Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development shall establish an Appeal Review Committee for Teachers (hereinafter referred to as the "Review Committee") in order to review appeals against the disciplinary action against teachers of various levels of schools and other unfavorable measures against their will (including the disposition of refusal for reappointment of teachers under Article 11-3 (4) of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 53-2 (6) of the Private School Act; hereinafter the same shall apply

Article 9 (Request, etc. for Examination of Petitions)

(1) If a teacher is dissatisfied with a disciplinary action or other unfavorable measure against his will, he may request the Examination Committee to examine his appeal within thirty days after he is informed of such action or measure. In this case, the person requesting for examination may appoint a lawyer as his agent.

C. Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the evidence mentioned above, the evidence mentioned in Gap 6, 7, 8, Eul 10-1 through 17 (including each number), Eul 1 through 9, Eul 10-1, 2, Eul 11, Eul 12, 13, and 14 (including each number), Eul 18-1 through 6, Eul 31, Eul 32-1 through 15, Eul 32-1 through 42, Eul 42, 43, Eul 44-1 through 8, Eul 45-1 through 7, Eul 46-1 through 46-5, and Eul 1 through 5, respectively:

(1) On March 1, 1996, the intervenor appointed the plaintiff as a full-time lecturer at the Taeduk University (university name omitted) after setting the term of appointment as two years. On March 1, 1998, the plaintiff met the minimum number of years of service in the promotion of assistant professors, but was reappointed as a full-time lecturer without being promoted as an assistant professor, and on April 1, 1999, the plaintiff was promoted as an assistant professor for three years.

(2) As of March 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was reappointed as an assistant professor until February 28, 2005. Around March 21, 2002, the term of appointment was changed from (school name omitted) to (school name omitted) around March 21, 2002, and the minimum number of years of employment to be promoted as an associate professor on March 1, 2003 (the date of promotion of the Plaintiff’s assistant professor falls short of four years of employment as of March 1, 2003, but the Intervenor satisfied the minimum number of years of employment to be promoted as of March 1, 2003. However, the Intervenor was not an associate professor, including the Plaintiff, who met the minimum number of years of employment to be promoted as of March 1, 2002, but did not have been assigned to the above assistant professor as of March 1, 2003 to be appointed as an assistant professor, and the Plaintiff did not have been appointed to be appointed as an associate professor on March 17, 2002.

(3) In order to promote a person to be promoted as of March 1, 2004 as of December 1, 2003, the intervenor conducted 21 persons eligible for promotion of associate professors, including the plaintiff (14 persons eligible for promotion of associate professors as of March 1, 2003 and 7 persons eligible for promotion of associate professors as of March 1, 2004) and 9 persons eligible for promotion of associate professors as of March 1, 2004, but did not promote all the persons eligible for promotion including the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff was assessed to satisfy the standards for evaluation of the position of teaching staff to be promoted as associate professors.

(4) In order to promote a person to be promoted as of March 1, 2005, the intervenor conducted a evaluation of the position of teaching staff and evaluation of the appointment of teaching staff and 11 persons eligible for promotion of the associate professor including the plaintiff (13 persons eligible for promotion of the associate professor who was appointed as the assistant professor on March 1, 199; 8 persons eligible for promotion of the associate professor who was appointed as the assistant professor on March 1, 200; 16 persons eligible for promotion of the associate professor who were appointed as the assistant professor on March 1, 200; 16 persons eligible for promotion of the associate professor after being appointed as the assistant professor on March 1, 201; and as a result, on February 28, 2005, the intervenor conducted a evaluation of the appointment of teaching staff and 37 persons eligible for promotion of the assistant professor including the plaintiff; however, the plaintiff did not include the appointment of 18 full-time instructors among the persons eligible for promotion of the associate professor and five persons among the assistant professors.

On the other hand, among the teachers who are promoted as associate professors in the assistant professors, 11 of the 13 assistant professors appointed as assistant professors on March 1, 199 as the plaintiff, who were appointed as assistant professors on March 1, 200, among eight assistant professors appointed as assistant professors on March 1, 200, only three persons from among the 16 assistant professors appointed as assistant professors on March 1, 200, and only four persons from among the 16 assistant professors appointed as assistant professors were promoted as associate professors on March 1, 201, and all the full-time instructors appointed as of March 1, 201 as of March 1, 200 were promoted as assistant professors, but only two persons from among the five full-time instructors appointed as of March 1, 202 were promoted as assistant professors, and on March 1, 2003, only one person to be promoted was not promoted.

(5) Since the Intervenor opened a high school university in 1996, the Intervenor sought various ways to attract new students so that the number of new students has gradually decreased due to the reduction of the number of high school students nationwide, and actively urged affiliated professors to visit each high school in 200 and attract new students. However, even though the initial recruitment quota was 1,300, the number of registered students was 99 (74.4%) but the number of registered students was merely 949 (74.4%). On March 9, 2002, the Intervenor abolished the Plaintiff’s educational organization, such as changing the Plaintiff to the number of high school students under the jurisdiction of the engineering department (the name of the school omitted) and the organization reorganization with 14 universities and 36 major departments, and followed the reorganization of the organization to build a network with high school and direct office high school in 500, and to maintain and improve the total number of students’ enrollment and employment rate, and maintained and improve the employment rate of the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, in 2003, the number of registered students was 594 (45.7%) and 1,100 (50.5%) in 2004, and the number of registered students was 556 (50.5%). On April 2004, the intervenor required to actively reflect the rate of attracting new students by each faculty in the appointment and promotion of teachers, and as a result, the number of registered students was 885 in 2005.

(6) The Intervenor’s articles of incorporation provides that a college educational institution’s faculty member shall be appointed and dismissed by the chief director upon a resolution of the board of directors on the recommendation of the head of the relevant school after deliberation by the personnel committee. The Intervenor’s personnel management rules provide that two years for the minimum number of years of service by class to be employed as an assistant professor from a full-time lecturer to a full-time lecturer, four years for the promotion to an associate professor from an associate professor, and five years for the promotion to an associate professor from an associate professor. Even if the above minimum number of years of service is satisfied, at least 600 educational points according to the faculty personnel evaluation regulations, at least 100 research points, at least 100 research points, and at least 250 points for the publication of the thesis or the publication of the above research books at home and abroad, among the above research points, shall meet the performance points at least 250 points for each class of service, and even if a teacher meeting the qualifications for appointment by class above, he/she shall obtain an average of at least 70 assistant professors from a full-time professor, and at least 80 persons.

(d) Markets:

(1) It is clear that the status as a teacher is strengthened compared with that of an assistant professor in a school, such as where the period of service is guaranteed to six years and the qualification to be promoted as a professor after the fact that the status as a teacher is strengthened in a school.

(2) However, unlike the refusal of the appointment of a teacher by taking advantage of his/her position as an intervenor or a teacher meeting certain qualifications, the standard of promotion may vary each year depending on various circumstances, including the fixed number of teaching staff, the number of teaching staff, the organization of a faculty, the number of students, and the financial evaluation of school foundations. Even if the appointment is not made, there is no change in the status of teaching staff by itself. Since the examination of the first promotion was conducted in 1998 after the opening of 199, the intervenor did not have a minimum number of years of working at the 199, all of the teaching staff who met the minimum number of years of employment at the 20-year university, but did not have a minimum number of years of employment at the 20-year university, or who did not have a duty to be promoted. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for promotion and promotion from the 200-year university to the 20-year minimum number of teaching staff members at the 20-year university was not considered as an assistant professor.

(3) Therefore, the instant decision that rejected or rejected the instant promotion does not constitute “disposition” as a subject of examination by the Defendant under Article 9(1) of the Teachers’ Status Act is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)