Whether the Private School Act has standing to sue against the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee of the Ministry of Education to seek cancellation of its decision on the review

A person who has a legal interest in the cancellation of a disposition subject to cancellation litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act is naturally admitted to be standing to sue, and as to the decision of the Review Committee on Disciplinary Action against Teachers in the Ministry of Education under Articles 7 through 10 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status, there is a legal interest in claiming the illegality of disciplinary action against a teacher subject to review and seeking the cancellation of the decision of the Private School Act.

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act Article 10 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

School Foundation Doessung(K)

Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee of the Ministry of Education

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision that the defendant revoked the dismissal of the non-party against the non-party on April 20, 1993 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

The Plaintiff is a school juristic person that establishes and operates six schools, such as macroscopians, middle schools, etc., on the ground that the Nonparty, from March 1989 to March 14, 1992, was elected as the chairman of the Scopian Education Promotion Committee for the reform of education and the reinstatement of teachers on June 14, 1992, and led the signing campaign for the reinstatement of teachers from around that time, and distributed the copic newsletter within the school, etc. prohibited as a teacher.

As of January 26, 1993, the above non-party dismissed pursuant to Articles 61(1) and 66 of the Private School Act. On February 20, 1993, the above non-party was dissatisfied with the request for a retrial seeking the revocation of the above dismissal. The defendant decided to revoke the above dismissal as of April 20, 1993 on the ground that the composition of the disciplinary committee was violated Article 62(2) of the Private School Act, not between the parties, nor between the parties, and the evidence No. 1 to No. 3-2, A-5-1, and 2 of the evidence No. 5-2.

2. Defenses to present the safety;

Article 10 (3) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status (hereinafter "Special Act") provides that "A teacher may file a lawsuit in accordance with the Administrative Litigation Act within 60 days from the date on which a decision of the Review Committee is served on him/her," and in light of the legislative intent of the above Act, the above provision is a special provision on Article 12 (Standing) of the Administrative Litigation Act, which is limited to a teacher who has filed a request for review in regard to a lawsuit seeking revocation of the decision of the Review Committee, and therefore, the school juristic person as the respondent in the request for review is not entitled to appeal against the decision of the Review Committee, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff school juristic person without standing to be a party shall be dismissed.

However, the first private school teacher is appointed and dismissed by the school juristic person or private school manager (Article 53, Article 53-2 of the Private School Act) and the relation between the private school teacher and the school juristic person is not considered as the power relation in the public law. Thus, a disposition of dismissal of a school juristic person for a private school teacher cannot be deemed as an administrative disposition subject to a revocation lawsuit pursuant to Articles 1, 2, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Therefore, an objection against the school juristic person shall not be based on the civil litigation procedure, but shall not be based on the administrative litigation procedure. However, even if it is established, promulgated, and implemented for the purpose of improving the status of teachers by strengthening the status guarantee of teachers, a request for reexamination is filed with the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee established in the Ministry of Education, and an administrative litigation is not against the decision of the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee established in the Ministry of Education, and it shall not be deemed that the administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation is an administrative disposition, and shall not be deemed as an administrative disposition, and it shall not be deemed as falling under the decision of the Administrative Appeal Committee (see Supreme Court Decision 297Nu 197.

그런데 행정소송법 제12조 는 ‘취소소송은 처분 등의 취소를 구할 법률상 이익이 있는 자가 제기할 수 있다’고 규정하고 있어 취소청구의 대상이 되는 처분의 취소에 대하여 법률상 이익이 있는 자에게는 당연히 원고적격이 있다고 할 것인데, 이 사건 취소소송의 대상은 원고 학교법인이 소외인에 대하여 한 해임처분을 취소한 피고의 결정이므로 원고 학교법인은 위 해임처분취소결정의 위법을 주장하여 그 취소를 구할 법률상 이익이 있다 할 것이다( 위 특별법 제10조 제2 , 3항 에 ‘재심위원회의 결정은 처분권자를 기속한다. 교원은‥‥‥행정소송법이 정하는 바에 의하여 소송을 제기할 수 있다’라고 규정되어 있기는 하나, 이는 재심위원회의 확정된 결정이 처분권자를 기속한다는 뜻이지 이해관계인인 학교법인이 행정소송법 제12조 에 따라 위 결정의 취소를 구하는 것까지 금지하는 취지로 해석되지는 아니한다). 따라서 피고의 위 항변은 이유 없다.

3. Judgment on the merits

The plaintiff asserts that the "school teacher" under Article 62 (2) of the Private School Act means that the above review decision made on the ground that the school juristic person to which the person under disciplinary action belongs refers only to the school to which the person under disciplinary action belongs, even though it is sufficient for the school teacher to whom the person under disciplinary action belongs, is unlawful by erroneous interpretation of the above provision under the Private School Act.

Article 62 (2) of the Private School Act provides that "The number of members who are directors of the relevant school foundation or the director of the relevant private school shall be not less than five but not more than nine shall be appointed by the relevant school foundation or the relevant manager from among the teachers of the relevant school foundation or the directors of the relevant private school: Provided, That in the case of the school foundation, the number of members who are directors of the relevant school foundation shall not exceed 1/2 of the relevant school foundation; according to the meaning of the above school, the composition of the school foundation's disciplinary committee may vary; and that the disciplinary committee may change disciplinary decisions; and it shall be interpreted differently from the meaning of the above provision, and it shall not be interpreted extensively beyond the meaning of the literary meaning. Thus, the meaning of the "school teacher" of the above school shall be deemed to refer only to the school teacher of the school to which the person under disciplinary action belongs, not to the school teacher under the management of the school foundation to which the person under disciplinary action belongs, but to which the person under disciplinary action belongs, in order to exclude the fairness of the person under authority to appoint.

However, the plaintiff is composed of seven members of the teachers disciplinary committee of the plaintiff school foundation which made a resolution on disciplinary action against the above non-party, and two of the seven members are directors of the plaintiff school foundation and the remaining five of the five members are teachers of other schools than those of the non-party belonging to the above non-party. Thus, the disciplinary action against the above non-party is unlawful in violation of Article 62 (2) of the Private School Act in the composition of the disciplinary committee, and the decision of the defendant who revoked the disciplinary action of this case is legitimate.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the defendant's above decision of retrial was unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party and so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ansan-dae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)