Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Ansanyang et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

○ ○ Private Teaching Institutes

Defendant 2 (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Park Sang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

October 23, 2015

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gahap5522 Decided June 5, 2015

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the appeals filed by the defendant school foundation ○○ School shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs additionally added in the appellate court dismissed the conjunctive claim against Defendant School Foundation ○○○ Private Teaching Institute.

3. The costs of the lawsuit that occurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant school foundation ○○○ Institute shall be borne individually by them, and the costs of the appeal between the plaintiffs and defendant 2 shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The disposition rejecting the reappointment of Plaintiff ○○ Private Teaching Institute (hereinafter “Defendant private Teaching Institute”) against the Plaintiffs on December 24, 2013 is null and void. The Defendants paid to each of the Plaintiffs KRW 23,696,40, and KRW 22,687,66 and each of the said money at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the date of delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case to the date of pronouncement of the first instance judgment; and KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and KRW 4,549,100 per annum from July 1, 2014 to the date of completion of the procedures for review of reappointment to the Plaintiffs; KRW 4,549,100 per annum from the date of completion of each of the appeals proceedings. The Defendants paid to each of the Plaintiffs at the rate of KRW 500,00 per annum and KRW 916 per annum from the next day to the next day of the first instance judgment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiffs falling under the part ordering payment among the part of the judgment against the plaintiffs shall be revoked. With respect to the plaintiff 1's 43,696,400 won, and with respect to the plaintiff 2's 42,687,666 won and each of the above money, the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the judgment of the first instance, the amount of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and the amount of 4,549,100 won per annum for the plaintiff 1 from July 1, 2014 to the day of full payment, and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 4,549,100 won per annum for the plaintiff 2 from July 1, 2014 to the day of full payment with respect to the plaintiffs' 10,000,000 won per annum and the amount of 20% per annum.

(b) Defendant Private Teaching Institutes;

Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant Private Teaching Institutes is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Private Teaching Institutes corresponding to the revoked part are dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for adding the following judgments with respect to the conjunctive claim against Defendant Private Teaching Institutes added by the appellate court, and thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' conjunctive claim against Defendant Private Teaching Institutes

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Even though the Appeal Commission for Teachers revoked the disposition rejecting the reappointment of this case and became binding, the Defendant’s Private Teaching Institute does not commence the procedures for review of reappointment at all. This constitutes tort as it infringes on the Plaintiffs’ rights requesting a fair review of reappointment in accordance with reasonable standards.

B. Determination

Article 10(2) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status (hereinafter referred to as "School Teachers' Status Act") provides that a decision of the Appeal Committee for Teachers shall bind the person in charge of the decision, which also extends to the judgment on specific grounds of illegality, such as the recognition and judgment of facts constituting the basis for the decision, as well as the matters included in the text of the decision, and the recognition and judgment of facts constituting the basis for the decision. Therefore, in an administrative litigation brought by the Appeal Committee for Teachers by a private school teacher does not bring an administrative litigation against the cancellation of a disciplinary action by citing a request for review of an appeal by a private school teacher, or in an administrative litigation brought by a school juristic person, etc. against it, the decision of the Committee becomes final and conclusive, and the decision of the Committee becomes final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1

In full view of the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as cited by this judgment and the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence No. 43, the plaintiffs filed a petition review on the rejection disposition of reappointment on January 24, 2014, and the Appeal Committee for Teachers filed a petition for review on the revocation of the above rejection disposition on April 30, 2014, and the Appeal Committee for Teachers rendered a decision to revoke the above rejection disposition on April 30, 2014, while the defendant driving school filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Administrative Court for the revocation of the above decision of the Appeal Committee for Teachers (Seoul High Court 2014Guhap13195), the appeal was dismissed, and the appeal was pending in the Supreme Court (Seoul High Court 2014Nu74253), and the fact that the appeal was pending in the Supreme Court. According to the above facts, since the defendant driving school currently has a dispute over the revocation decision of the rejection disposition of reappointment of appointment of the plaintiffs, it cannot be viewed as a tort on

Therefore, this part of the claim by the prior plaintiffs on different premise is without reason to further examine.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition rejecting reappointment among the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant private teaching institute is justified, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the appeal of the plaintiffs and the defendant private teaching institute is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the appeal.

Judges Kim Dae-ro (Presiding Judge)