(영문) 서울행정법원 2013.12.20.선고 2013구합17206 판결

Refusal of reappointment between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant on April 1, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”);

The decision made on the case of revocation of the request shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the review and decision on the petition;

A. On March 1, 201, an intervenor was appointed as an assistant professor at the Dongyang National University established and operated by the Plaintiff (two years of contract period) and submitted an application for reappointment upon the expiration of the contract period on November 15, 2012. However, on December 28, 2012, the Plaintiff decided to dismiss the Intervenor’s reappointment (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”), and related notification reached the intervenor on December 31, 2012.

B. On January 22, 2013, an intervenor filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission for the revocation of the disposition of rejection of reappointment of the instant case with the Appeal Commission for Teachers. On April 1, 2013, the Appeal Commission for Teachers decided to revoke the disposition of rejection of reappointment of the instant case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision”). The rules on appointment of full-time teachers related to the reappointment of teachers have the following problems: 1. The rules on appointment of full-time teachers do not stipulate the qualifications for reappointment of teachers where the assessed points of the Personnel Committee of the University (department) are not less than 70 points in the faculty in relation to the reappointment of teachers; and thus, it does not comply with Article 53-2 of the Private School Act that provides for the deliberation of the Personnel Committee for Teachers in the event of reappointment of teachers by the result of the determination of the revocation of reappointment of teachers prior to the procedures for deliberation of the Personnel Committee for Teachers, and the criteria for evaluation of the Teachers’ Personnel Committee for new appointment of teachers do not comply with the objective criteria for review, which are set forth in Article 5 of the Private School Act.

2. Whether the decision of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The decision of this case seems to be contrary to the provisions of Article 53-2 of the Private School Act, but (1) the former Regulations on the Appointment of Teachers provide that a faculty member shall not be reappointed if the evaluation score of the personnel committee of the faculty (department B) is not less than 70 points. However, the plaintiff does not question the intervenor who failed to meet the above criteria and went through the deliberation of the teachers' personnel committee. Thus, in this case, even if there are defects in the above provisions itself, the decision of this case does not affect the illegality of the disposition rejecting re-employment of this case. (2) Whether a school juristic person should re-appoints a person whose term of appointment expires is belonging to discretionary action, and it is inevitable that the fixed-term evaluation and the fixed-term evaluation are properly mixed when determining the re-employment criteria. (In addition, the fixed-term evaluation of faculty members with 30 points assigned to it is high, and it is hard to view that the plaintiff's subsequent decision of plagiarism was unlawful after the plaintiff's rejection of the decision of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the statutes.

1) On March 1, 2009, an intervenor was newly appointed as an assistant professor of the Dongyang National University (the term of appointment from March 1, 2009 to February 28, 201) and on March 1, 2011, an intervenor was appointed in the form of new appointment again (the term of appointment from March 1, 201 to February 28, 201).

B) On October 31, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors that they will expire the term of appointment. On November 15, 2012, the Intervenor submitted to the Plaintiff an application for reappointment on the part of the Intervenor.

C) On April 2012, at the time of the Intervenor’s 201, a faculty personnel committee and teachers’ personnel committee have already conducted a faculty evaluation on the 201th anniversary of the Intervenor. The faculty personnel committee and teachers’ personnel committee on November 19, 2012.

From the 22th day of the same month to the 22th day of the same month, an evaluation of the intervenor's reappointment was conducted.

D) On November 28, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors that the results of deliberation on reappointment in accordance with each of the above evaluations were deemed to fall short of the criteria for reappointment, and notified the intervenors of an additional opportunity to state their opinions.

E) On December 12, 2012, the Intervenor submitted a written objection to the Plaintiff. On December 2, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the Intervenor’s objection was dismissed after deliberation by the Teachers’ Personnel Committee.

F) On December 21, 2012, the president of the Korea-U.S. University proposed that the Intervenor be reappointed. On December 21, 2012, the president decided to decline the Intervenor’s reappointment on the 27th of the same month. On the 28th of the same month, the Plaintiff sent to the Intervenor a document containing the foregoing facts by content-certified mail. 2) The Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23605, Sep. 1, 2012).

Article 8 (Evaluation of Teachers' Status)

(1) Faculty members of a university shall undergo an annual evaluation of their faculty members (hereinafter referred to as "evaluation of their achievements").

(2) The evaluation of achievements shall be conducted in respect of education, research, industry-academic cooperation, fields of service, etc., and the promotion and reappointment of teachers, and appointment by contract system (in cases of appointment after the period of service has expired pursuant to the provisions of Article 24, and in such cases, appointment by contract system, etc. shall apply.

(3) Matters concerning the evaluation standards, methods, the upper limit of evaluation by each process, accumulated points, etc. so that the achievement evaluation may be conducted in a fair and objective manner shall be separately determined by the president after deliberation by the Teachers Personnel Committee

(4) Detailed matters concerning the evaluation of achievements shall be prescribed separately by rule.

Article 26 (Reappointment, etc.)

(1) Reappointment of a teacher the term of appointment of which expires pursuant to Article 24 or 25 shall be appointed or dismissed by the chief director on the recommendation of the president.

(2) Detailed matters for examination for reappointment and procedures therefor under paragraph (1) shall be separately prescribed.

B) Full-time Teachers Appointment Regulations (amended on September 26, 2012)

Article 22 (Qualifications for Reappointment)

(4) Qualifications for reappointment of teachers shall be as follows: Provided, That foreign teachers may be exempted from such appointment:

1. Results of training at an industrial enterprise or public institution related to majors for not less than seven days in its class;

3. [Attachment 21] The evaluation table of a faculty (department) evaluation table of a faculty (department) evaluation table of a faculty for the reappointment of a faculty member at least 70 (attached Table 21] (attached Table 21) of a faculty member for the reappointment of a faculty member shall be recorded in the column of other opinions of a faculty member of a faculty (department) for the reappointment of a faculty member, in the form of a faculty member of a faculty (department 21), in the form of a faculty member of a faculty (department 21), in the form of a faculty member

* Evaluation Guidelines

1. The evaluation score of a faculty (department) shall be acquired at least 70 points, and the qualification for reappointment shall be renewed.

2. The rating shall be five stages A, B, C, D, and E, and the rating shall be stated in each item.

- Rating: The Rating Points A (C), B (Excellent), C (Ordinary), D (Deficiency), and E (Sy deficient) : A (1.0), B (0.8), C (0.6), D (0.4), and E (0.2) 3 on the basis of the Rating: The Rating shall be based on “C” and “I must, without fail, state the grounds for any Rating other than the Rating” in detail.

Article 23 (Criteria for Reappointment)

(2) The full scores of 100 points in the evaluation of reappointment of practical training teachers, middle-academic cooperation teachers, industrial career teachers, and teaching staff shall be as follows based on the actual results during the current tenure of office: Provided, That the president may grant additional points of not more than 10 points:

1. The average score by grade of the teaching field evaluation for each school year based on [Attachment 26 - 1]: 30 points: Provided, That in this case, only the individual evaluation part of the teaching field evaluation shall apply;

2. The evaluation score of a faculty (department) of a personnel committee (departments): 50 points;

3. Evaluation score in the teachers' personnel committee: 20 points.

(3) General teachers and practice teachers reappointed shall have not less than 70 points for evaluation of their reappointment, points for evaluation of their reappointment, points for industry-academic cooperation, points for industry-academic cooperation, and points for evaluation of their reappointment shall be not less than 80 points.

[Attachment 26 - 1] The ratio of reflection of the evaluation of teaching service for the evaluation of reappointment and the evaluation of the personnel committee by grade Article 24 (Academy (A) of the scores of the evaluation of reappointment

For the evaluation of reappointment of teachers, personnel members of a faculty (department) of a faculty (department) shall prepare an evaluation table of a faculty (department) of a faculty for reappointment in an indefinite name and submit it to the school office. The evaluation table of lecture teachers shall be used [attached Table 21].

Article 24-1 (Evaluation of Teachers Personnel Committee)

For the evaluation of reappointment of teachers, teachers' personnel members shall prepare an evaluation table of the teachers' personnel committee for reappointment in an indefinite name and submit it to the Academy of School. The evaluation table of teachers on demotion shall be used in attached Table 25.

[Attachment 25] Evaluation Table of the Teachers' Personnel Committee for Reappointment of Teaching Staff Members

1. In the field of education; 2. General* and other comments shall state the time to be referred to the President's home in the field of education.

Guidelines for preparing an evaluation table of the teachers' personnel committee for reappointment of teachers;

1. The teachers' personnel committee shall evaluate the total evaluation points of reappointment at the rate of 20%.

2. The rating shall be five stages A, B, C, D, and E, and the rating shall be stated in each item.

3. The rating shall be based on “C” grade, but “I must always state the grounds for the rating other than that.”

4.The rating and the rating point shall be as follows:

- Rating: Regulation (Criteria for Assessment) Article 6 (Criteria) of A (1.0), B (0.8), C (0.6), E (0.4), and E (0.2) of the Rules on the Evaluation of Teaching Status

(1) Criteria for evaluation by field shall be as specified in attached Table 1 [Attachment 1] standards for teaching staff.

[Attachment 1] Criteria for the evaluation of teaching staff members in the faculty evaluation standard lecture

1. In the field of evaluation: The evaluation points that are divided into the field of education, the field of service, and the evaluation of departments; 1. 3) of the intervenor's evaluation points that are the evaluation points for reappointment: The evaluation points that are the professor's evaluation points that are the subjects of education: 8. (30 out of the scale of 2011);

(b) Evaluation score of the personnel committee in a faculty (department) : average 3.3 points (total 50 points)

D) Results: Qualification requirements for reappointment - The evaluation score of the faculty (departments) 66.6 below - the evaluation score of non-appointed reappointment - 73.2

[Grounds for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 18 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) The purport of Article 53-2(7) of the Private School Act stipulating that the grounds for review of reappointment should be based on the objective reasons prescribed by school regulations for intervenors. It is interpreted that the Plaintiff’s determination of the grounds for review of reappointment should not be based on objective reasons, such as matters regarding education of students, evaluation of academic research matters, and student guidance, and that the criteria for review of reappointment should be prescribed in advance to ensure that the relevant faculty members were fairly conducted based on reasonable standards (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du495, Jan. 13, 201). However, it is difficult to determine that the criteria for review of reappointment were based on the objective reasons that the Plaintiff would be subject to review of the Intervenor’s qualifications for reappointment based on such objective reasons as the criteria for review of the Intervenor’s qualifications for review of reappointment, and that the criteria for review of the Intervenor’s qualifications for review, which are not based on such objective reasons for review of the Intervenor’s qualifications for reappointment, including the following facts and evidence: (i) It is difficult to determine the criteria for review of appointment based on such objective points.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.