(영문) 대법원 2016.4.15.선고 2015다214943 판결

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the claim for payment of wages

A. The lower court, based on its adopted evidence, acknowledged that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of “persons with at least three years’ experience as qualified for appointment of a new faculty member under the Personnel Management Regulations at the time of appointment as the Defendant’s new faculty member,” and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of wages on October 29, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff was disqualified for appointment as a new faculty member.

B. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the records, Article 13 (4) of the Personnel Management Regulations of the defendant provides that "a teacher in charge of a new subject in a new subject and a senior subject in a new subject education division shall be, in principle, a person who has served for at least three years as a pastor falling under paragraph 1, 2, or (3) of this Article, and a teacher who fails to meet the above qualifications for appointment may be found not to have any provision stipulating that there is no reason for ipso facto appointment of a teacher who fails to meet the above qualifications for appointment. Meanwhile, Article 57 of the Private School Act provides that a teacher in a private school falls under any of the grounds for disqualification for appointment of a public educational official under any of subparagraphs of Article 10-4 of the Public Educational Officials Act, and the above grounds for disqualification for appointment under the personnel management regulations of the defendant do not fall

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff, who was appointed as the Defendant’s teacher, failed to meet all or part of the qualification for appointment of teachers under the Defendant’s personnel regulations, as long as it is not stipulated in the statutes, the personnel regulations or the articles of incorporation of the Defendant, etc., it cannot be deemed that the above circumstance alone

Furthermore, the legal nature of a contract for the appointment of a private school teacher is not different from a private employment contract, and if there is a ground for invalidation or revocation in the parties’ declaration of intent to conclude the contract, the other party may automatically assert the invalidation or revocation of the appointment contract and reject or extinguish the occurrence of legal effect therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da15479, Aug. 26, 1994). In light of the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, there is no circumstance to deem that the appointment contract of the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void, such as the violation of the mandatory law or the grounds for invalidation under the Civil Act, etc. In this case, there is no reason to deem that the defendant cannot refuse to receive labor after the appointment. Accordingly, the court below rejected this part of the claim for wage by deeming that the defendant's refusal to receive labor provision after the Defendant's notification of the invalidation of appointment is justifiable. Such judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for invalidation or the appointment of a teacher in a private school.

2. As to the claim for damages, the Plaintiff stated in the petition of appeal that only the part of the judgment below against the claim for wage payment, but also the appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the period for appeal, stating the purport of appeal and the grounds of appeal on the claim for damages. Therefore, the appeal on the claim for damages as to the above claim for damages is unlawful as an appeal after

3. Conclusion

Without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining grounds of appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.