(a) Whether a private university faculty member whose term of office is fixed is retired ipso facto from office at the expiration of his term;

(b) Whether Article 5-3 (2) of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials applies mutatis mutandis to private school teachers;

C. Whether the provision of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teachers of Private Universities that "the time of reappointment of teachers shall be 3.1. and 9.1." should be deemed to include the fact that the term of appointment of the teacher whose term of appointment expires during the semester expires at the end of the semester.

D. Whether the reappointment of a university professor at the expiration of the term of office of the university professor is discretionary action by the appointing authority

(e) the legal nature of the decision to refuse the reappointment of a teacher whose term of office has been fixed;

A. The status of a teacher of a private university appointed for a specified period pursuant to Article 53-2(3) of the Private School Act shall naturally terminate the status as a university faculty member upon the expiration of the term of appointment unless there is any ground provision that imposes an obligation to re-appoint an educational foundation’s articles of association

B. Article 5-3(2) of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials provides that “If the term of appointment expires during the term of appointment, the last day of the term to which the date on which the term expires shall be deemed to be the expiration date of the term of appointment” shall not apply mutatis mutandis under the Private School Act, so it shall not be naturally applicable to private school teachers

C. Where the regulations on the personnel management of teachers of private universities stipulate that "the time of reappointment shall be 3.1 and 9.1, except in the case of urgency due to retirement, etc.", the term of appointment of teachers whose term of appointment expires during the course of a semester shall lose their status as a teacher immediately and shall be determined at the beginning of a semester even though they are not already in their status as a teacher at the beginning of the next semester. The purport of Article 5-3(2) of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials of (B) is to prevent any interference in education due to a change in academic schedule during a semester. This situation is to prevent such a change in educational schedule during a semester. In light of the fact that a private school does not have any different situation, and that a private university itself considers that the term of appointment expires at the end of a semester, the provision shall be deemed to include that the term of appointment of a teacher whose term of appointment expires during a semester shall expire at the end of a semester.

D. As a matter of course, the status of university faculty members appointed for a specified period is terminated as a matter of course due to the expiration of their term of appointment. Under the Education Act, university professors, etc. are required to have high level of professional knowledge, teaching ability, and personality, and when the term of appointment expires, the appointment authority should decide whether to re-appoint a person whose term of appointment expires, taking into account such various circumstances. Thus, whether to appoint a person whose term of appointment expires belongs to discretionary action based on

E. A university faculty member appointed for a fixed period shall enter into a contract for reappointment upon the expiration of the fixed period. If a university faculty member fails to conclude the contract for reappointment, he/she shall be retired from office without undergoing special procedures, such as a decision to refuse reappointment, etc. Therefore, a school juristic person’s decision and notification that the faculty member will not be reappointed according to the deliberation and decision by the teachers’ personnel committee is merely to confirm and notify that the faculty member will be retired from office at the expiration of the term

(a)Article 53bis 3(b) of the Private School Act; Article 53bis 2(c) of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials;

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Da5093 delivered on April 23, 1993 (1993Ha, 1538) 92Da40587 delivered on July 27, 1993 (1993Ha, 2386) 94Da4288 delivered on May 13, 1994 (1994Sang, 1684) B. Supreme Court Decision 93Nu3745 delivered on May 14, 1993 (1993Ha, 1705) 93Nu16277 delivered on April 12, 1994 (194Sang, 1491) 89Nu640 delivered on June 27, 198 (1989Ha, 198, 196Nu373196389 delivered on July 16, 197) 196.

Plaintiff

A school juristic person ○○ New Driving Schools

Daejeon High Court Decision 93Na4456 delivered on January 28, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the second ground for appeal

Unless any ground provision exists that imposes an obligation to re-appoint a teacher of a private university for a specified period under Article 53-2 (3) of the Private School Act, his/her status as a university faculty member is naturally terminated due to the expiration of the term of appointment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da40587, Jul. 27, 1993; 93Da5093, Apr. 23, 1993; 91Da1134, Jun. 25, 1991; 94Da428, May 13, 1994; 94Da4288, May 13, 1994; see, e.g., Article 53-3 (2) of the Decree on Appointment does not apply mutatis mutandis to the teacher of a private school, so it is not naturally applicable to the teacher of a private school.

However, Article 11 (1) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff in △△ University operated by the Defendant provides that "the period of reappointment of a teacher shall be 3.1 and 9.1, except in the case of urgency due to a vacancy caused by retirement, etc." The term of appointment of a teacher whose term of appointment expires during a semester shall lose his status as a teacher immediately and be determined at the beginning of a semester even though he is not already in his status at the beginning of the next semester. The purport of the above provision on the appointment of an education public official is to prevent problems in education due to changes in academic schedule during a semester. The purport of the above provision on the appointment of an education public official is to prevent problems in education due to a change in educational schedule during a semester. In light of the fact that there is no different situation, and that the defendant itself considers that the term of appointment expires at the end of a semester, the above provision on the personnel management of a teacher shall be deemed to include that the term of appointment of a teacher whose term of appointment expires during a semester.

Therefore, the term of appointment of the plaintiff reappointed for the term of office on April 14, 198 shall expire on August 31, 1992, which belongs to the expiration date of the term. Thus, it is difficult for the defendant to recognize the implied renewal of the appointment contract by taking a three-month measure of suspension from office against the plaintiff on May 18, 1992 while the defendant is in the term of employment of the plaintiff on August 11 of the same year.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that deemed that the appointment period of the plaintiff expired on March 31, 192 shall be erroneous for the interpretation of the above teachers' personnel management regulations, but the conclusion that the plaintiff's appointment contract was not implicitly renewed is justifiable, and therefore there is no reason to argue that the plaintiff's appointment contract was implicitly renewed.

2. On the first and third grounds for appeal

A university faculty member appointed for a fixed period of time shall naturally terminate his/her status as a university faculty member due to the expiration of his/her term of appointment. A university professor, etc. under the Education Act requires high-level professional knowledge, teaching ability, and personality, and the appointment authority should be able to determine whether to re-appoint the university member upon expiration of the term of appointment in consideration of such various circumstances. Thus, whether to re-appoint the university whose term of appointment expires belongs to discretionary action based on the decision of the appointment authority (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2315 delivered on July 27, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9640 delivered on June 27, 1989).

In addition, the university faculty appointed for a specified period shall enter into the reappointment contract upon the expiration of the term of appointment, and if a university foundation fails to conclude the reappointment contract, it shall be retired from office without undergoing special procedures, such as a decision to refuse reappointment. Therefore, it is nothing more than confirming and informing that it will be retired from office for the teacher according to the deliberation and decision of the teachers' personnel committee, and this does not result in any legal effect between the teacher and the school foundation (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2622 delivered on June 9, 1987). Accordingly, the plaintiff shall be retired from office upon the expiration of the term of appointment on August 31, 192, and the defendant made the date of the resignation of the plaintiff as of September 1, 199 and therefore, it does not bring about any legal effect.

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to abuse of the right of appointment and dismissal or notification of rejection of reappointment.

The precedents cited as arguments are different from those cited in this case, and thus are not appropriate in this case. There is no reason for both the arguments.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)