Plaintiff

Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development Special Committee on Appeal against Teachers (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Incheon director of a junior college (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

February 22, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

The defendant's decision to dismiss the re-examination of reappointment made on August 16, 2006 between the plaintiff and the head of Si-Gu Incheon High School shall be revoked.

1. Details of disposition;

A. On March 1, 1992, the Plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer at the Incheon Junior University (hereinafter referred to as the “Gu Incheon Junior University”) operated by the National Institute of Education (hereinafter referred to as the “National Institute of Education”) on March 1, 1992.

B. On February 28, 1994, the Plaintiff was dismissed from office due to expiration of the term of appointment and change of the founder of the Gu Incheon Junior University (hereinafter “the act of dismissal”), and on March 1, 1994, the Gu junior college changed the founder into the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City (the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City at that time, the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City, and the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City, the hereinafter “Mayor”).

C. On November 30, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review of reappointment with the Defendant under the Special Act on the Relief of Persons Disqualified from Appointment System of University Faculty Members (hereinafter “Special Act on Remedies”).

D. On August 16, 2006, the defendant dismissed the plaintiff's appeal for review of reappointment on the ground that the dismissal of the plaintiff in this case against the plaintiff does not fall under the subject of review of reappointment under the Special Act on Remedy (hereinafter the decision in this case).

(Entrys in Evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's rejection of reappointment by the intervenor joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the intervenor joining the defendant joining the defendant), and even if the plaintiff's rejection of new appointment is not denied, the above rejection disposition of new appointment should be deemed to include the rejection disposition of reappointment by the examination of substantial reappointment.

Therefore, the defendant's dismissal of this case is clear that it constitutes subject to review of reappointment, and the defendant's decision of this case against this is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On June 11, 1992, the Minister of Education dismissed all directors of the Institute of Education pursuant to Article 20-2 of the Private School Act and appointed temporary directors.

(2) On December 193, 1993, the board of directors of the Institute of Prior Sciences, composed of the temporary directors of the Institute of Prior Sciences, decided to transfer all its affiliated educational institutions including the Gu Incheon junior college, which was established and operated by the Institute of Prior Sciences, to Incheon City.

(3) On December 30, 1993, the first-class university established an industry-academic partnership agreement for the publicization of the first-class school for the purpose of changing the founders of the Incheon mayor and the former Incheon junior college from the first-class university to the Incheon Private Teaching Institute.

(4) The Incheon City Mayor decided to appoint all of the faculty members of various levels of schools under the Prior Private Teaching Institutes as public educational officials and local public officials unless they are disqualified for appointment (see Article 2(1) of the "Agreement on the Transfer and Receipt of Schools at Each Industry-Academic level for the City/publicization of a School Foundation").

(5) On January 7, 1994, the Incheon City Mayor filed an application with the Minister of Education for authorization to change the founder of the Gu Incheon Junior University, etc. on the Minister of Education on January 15, 1994, the Minister of Education authorized the change of the founder of the Gu Incheon Junior College on January 15, 1994, and the effective date of the authorization was March 1, 199

(6) On January 1, 1994, the Plaintiff submitted documents required for the curriculum, personnel records card, academic achievement certificate, employment physical examination certificate, research performance, etc. for the appointment of teachers at the city of Incheon, which was newly launched at the request of the head of the Gu Incheon, Incheon.

(7) On February 194, 1994, the Incheon City Mayor established the "Examination Committee for Appointment of Teachers" for the appointment of teaching staff at the Incheon High University, and examined the qualifications of professors and associate professors working at the Gu Incheon Junior University, etc.

(8) On March 1, 1994, the supplementary intervenor specially appointed assistant professors and full-time instructors who worked at the former Incheon junior college with the consent of the Incheon junior college personnel committee, and the Incheon junior college personnel committee decided that the appointment of four full-time instructors including the plaintiff was not made.

(9) 37 professors, who were not appointed as faculty members of Si-type Incheon junior college including the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit seeking implementation of the appointment procedure against the Intervenor’s rejection of appointment. On January 25, 1996, the Seoul High Court revoked the rejection of appointment against 35 professors except the Plaintiff and the Nonparty on January 25, 1996, and sentenced the Plaintiff and the Nonparty on February 28, 1994 on the ground that the rejection of appointment against the Plaintiff and the Nonparty cannot be deemed a rejection disposition subject to administrative litigation (Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu23564), and the above judgment became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court’s dismissal decision on October 10, 197 (Supreme Court Decision 96Nu40466).

(Entrys in Evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings)

(d) Markets:

In principle, Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Special Remedies Act covers review of reappointment in cases where the reappointment is not made by the appointing authority or the appointing authority from among the faculty members appointed pursuant to the fixed-term appointment system for university faculty members on the grounds of expiration of the term of appointment, lack of the standard of review of reappointment, etc., and exceptionally receives a decision that there is no interest in the lawsuit since the term of appointment expires in the litigation procedure disputing such dismissal, dismissal, removal, or dismissal, and only the case where the reappointment is not made on the grounds of expiration of the term of appointment but only includes the case

However, in full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff is not entitled to file a petition for review of reappointment under the Special Relief Act against the Intervenor, since the Plaintiff was dismissed only due to change of the founder of the former Incheon Incheon junior college or expiration of the term of appointment, and such dismissal or re-employment is not denied by the Intervenor.

(1) As long as the status relationship of the teachers in the old Incheon junior college, a private university, is not established by new employment under Article 11(3) of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 5207 of Dec. 30, 1996) or by special employment under Article 12(1)5, the change of the founder is naturally terminated.

(2) As seen earlier, the Minister of Education’s disposition of approving the founders of Incheon junior college was effective on March 1, 1994. As such, the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss the Plaintiff at the time of expiration of the term of appointment is not a supplementary intervenor but a prior private teaching institute, and the Plaintiff is dismissed by the prior private teaching institute, which is not a supplementary intervenor, and thus, the Plaintiff may not request an examination for re-election against the supplementary intervenor.

(3) Furthermore, the statement of evidence No. 1 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Intervenor succeeded to the duty to review the reappointment of the Plaintiff from the Earlier Institute, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(4) The Intervenor’s refusal to appoint the Plaintiff is not refusal of reappointment through an examination of reappointment, but rejection of an application for new or special appointment to a public school teacher, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the act of refusal to appoint the Plaintiff included a disposition of refusal to appoint the Plaintiff through an examination of substantial reappointment.

(5) According to the above Supreme Court Decision (Supreme Court Decision 96Nu4046), the ultimate reason why the supplementary intervenor refused the plaintiff's special appointment application is justifiable is that the Incheon City Mayor agreed to specially appoint the existing teachers and staff, and that the supplementary order for the Incheon City Mayor to this purport is applied only to the teachers who still remain the employment period in the old Incheon Incheon junior college based on March 1, 1994, and this is not a matter of interpretation of the above employment agreement and the supplementary order, and it is not a matter of whether the supplementary order is re-appointed to the plaintiff.

(6) The plaintiff is not dismissed, removed, or dismissed by the supplementary intervenor.

(7) The recognition of the right to review the reappointment of an intervenor who is not dismissed by the intervenor as to the supplementary intervenor, or the recognition of the right to review the reappointment of the defendant against the defendant is against the express provision of the Special Act on Remedy and legal stability.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion is groundless, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) Kim-ho