[1] Whether a teacher is naturally disqualified due to the expiration of the term of appointment where a dismissal disposition becomes invalidated during the term of appointment (affirmative)

[2] Where an employer’s dismissal, etc. constitutes a tort

[3] The method of determining the existence of intention or negligence to ask the employer for tort liability due to unfair dismissal, etc.

[1] Unless there are grounds for granting the duty of reappointment to a teacher whose term of appointment expires in the articles of incorporation, etc. of a school juristic person, a teacher who has been appointed for a specified term shall lose his status as a teacher as a matter of course due to the expiration of his term of appointment even if the teacher was dismissed, dismissed, or dismissed before the expiration of

[2] In general, in a case where an employer’s unfavorable disposition such as dismissal against workers is judged to be null and void due to the employer’s lack of justifiable grounds, it cannot immediately constitute a tort. However, the employer is liable to compensate for the emotional distress of workers caused by tort in a case where it is acknowledged that the employer intentionally used the means of disciplinary action on the ground of a nominal dismissal, etc. under the employer’s intent to find workers at the workplace, even though there are no grounds for disciplinary dismissal, etc., or where it is objectively apparent that a certain fact caused by dismissal, etc. does not constitute a ground for disciplinary action, such as rules of employment, or cannot be considered as a ground for disciplinary action, or where it is objectively obvious that such circumstance could not be easily identified if he/she exercised due care.

[3] In light of the objective circumstances at the time of dismissal of workers, the degree of workers' misconduct, etc., and the circumstances leading up to the disadvantageous disposition against workers, etc., it is not unreasonable to determine that the employer's misconduct, etc. constitutes a ground for disadvantageous disposition such as dismissal of workers under the rules of employment or collective agreement. In addition, in case where the employer took the pertinent unfavorable disposition through legitimate procedures, etc., the employer shall be deemed to have fulfilled the duty of care to pay disadvantage to workers such as dismissal. Thus, even if the pertinent unfavorable disposition such as dismissal was judged null and void after the court, it shall not be deemed that there was any intentional or negligent act that could cause tort liability.

[1] Article 53-2 (2) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 1990) / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act / [3] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da1134 delivered on June 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 2003), Supreme Court Decision 93Da5093 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1538), Supreme Court Decision 92Da40587 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2386), Supreme Court Decision 94Da4332 delivered on April 7, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1815) / [2/3] Supreme Court Decision 93Da11463 delivered on December 21, 1993 (Gong194, 198) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 93Da139432 delivered on April 13, 1994 (Gong194, 498) / [29Da139435 delivered on April 196, 1994]

Plaintiff 1 and six others (Attorney Kim Jong-he, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

School Foundation Shipbuilding University (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 94Na6160 delivered on January 18, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Unless there is a provision that imposes an obligation to be reappointed to a teacher whose term of appointment expires in the articles of incorporation, etc. of a school juristic person, the teacher in question shall lose his status as a teacher naturally upon the expiration of his term of appointment even if he was dismissed, dismissed, or dismissed before the term of appointment expires (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da1134, Jun. 25, 1991; 93Da5093, Apr. 23, 1993; 92Da40587, Jul. 27, 1993; 94Da4332, Apr. 7, 1995).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the Supreme Court Decision 91Da12820 delivered on July 23, 1991, or Decision 93Da17843 delivered on January 11, 1994, which held that the theory of lawsuit is not a proper precedent, since it differs from the case in this case. The argument is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In general, where an employer’s unfavorable disposition of dismissal, etc. against workers is judged to be null and void due to such reasons, the unfavorable disposition of dismissal, etc. shall not immediately constitute a tort. However, even though there are no grounds for the employer to take disciplinary action against workers, it shall not be deemed that the employer intentionally used the means of disciplinary action on the ground of a nominal dismissal, etc. under the intent of the employer to find the workers at the workplace without any grounds for disciplinary action, etc., or that it is objectively apparent that a certain fact on the ground of dismissal, etc. does not constitute a ground for disciplinary action under the rules of employment, etc. or cannot be considered as a ground for disciplinary action, or that such circumstance may be easily identified if he paid due attention, even though he did not have any intention or negligence on the ground of the dismissal, etc., the employer is liable to compensate for the worker’s mental distress caused thereby (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da43586, Oct. 12, 193; 193Da316939, Dec. 1396, 196. 193

However, in light of the objective circumstances at the time of dismissal of workers, the degree of worker's misconduct, etc., and the circumstances leading up to the disadvantageous disposition against workers, it is unreasonable for an employer to determine that the act of misconduct, etc. of workers constitutes a disadvantageous disposition such as dismissal of workers under the rules of employment or collective agreement. In addition, if the relevant unfavorable disposition was rendered through legitimate procedures, etc., it shall be deemed that the employer fulfilled the duty of care to pay disadvantage to workers such as dismissal. Thus, even if the unfavorable disposition such as dismissal was judged null and void after the court, it shall not be deemed that there was an intentional or negligent act that could cause tort liability.

As recognized by the lower court, if the Plaintiff’s case was a public health team and factual relations, and it was merely an assault against students in the industrial management department of the Joseon University established and operated by the Defendant Corporation, and a considerable number of the above departments were selected as a so-called violence and language professor from the above departments over a long period from 1 semester 1989 to the above Plaintiff’s refusal to attend the above Plaintiff’s class, etc. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lecture was launched, and since May 13, 1989, the above Plaintiff’s lecture was suspended due to the suspension of the above Plaintiff’s lecture since May 13, 1989. The Defendant’s medical examination committee was organized by the KCA as the chairman of the KCA and conducted an investigation into the truth, and the president did not take an action of removal from the Plaintiff’s position for the reason that the Plaintiff failed to perform his/her duties after his/her normal dismissal from his/her position for the same period of time, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to remove the Plaintiff’s position after his/her dismissal.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money in the same purport is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)