In the case of faculty members reappointed after a judgment revoking the disposition rejecting their reappointment, whether the period from the expiration of the term of appointment to the date of their reappointment shall be included in the period of service as stipulated in Article 23(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act (negative)

In the absence of special circumstances, a teacher of a national or public university who has been appointed for a specified period shall terminate his/her status as a teacher upon the expiration of his/her term of appointment. Even if a teacher whose term of appointment expires refuses to be reappointed and the disposition of refusal to be reappointed has been revoked by a court decision, the appointing authority is merely obligated to deliberate on his/her reappointment and decide whether to be reappointed. Such revocation decision does not necessarily lead to the recovery of his/her status retroactively from the time of the disposition of refusal to be reappointed. Therefore, even if a teacher is reappointed through a decision to revoke the disposition of refusal to be reappointed, the period of his/her status as a teacher after the expiration of his/her term of appointment shall not be included in the period

Article 23 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Public Official Pension Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu19484 decided Dec. 10, 2008

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term of office of a teacher of a national or public university who has been appointed for a specified term expires due to the expiration of his or her term of office, and even if a refusal to be reappointed has been rejected and such refusal has been revoked by a court decision, the appointment authority is merely obligated to deliberate on the reappointment and decide whether to be reappointed, and such revocation decision cannot be viewed as restoring his or her status retroactively to the time of the refusal to be reappointed. Therefore, even if a teacher is reappointed through a decision to revoke the refusal to be reappointed, the term of office of the teacher shall not be included in the term of office under Article 23 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act until his or her status as a teacher has been lost due to the expiration of his or

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff was appointed as a fixed-term assistant of ○ University on September 1, 1994 and lost the status as a university faculty member on August 31, 1998 due to the expiration of the term of appointment and the refusal of reappointment on August 31, 1998, but was awarded a favorable judgment in the administrative litigation seeking revocation of the said refusal of reappointment, and subsequently re-acquisition the status of the university faculty member on March 3, 2005. However, even if the plaintiff was de facto demoted even after he lost the status as the university faculty member after the expiration of the term of appointment, even if he was re-defined as the plaintiff's career after the expiration of the term of appointment, the period during which he lost the status as the university faculty member after the expiration of the term of appointment cannot be included in the term of office as stipulated in Article 23

In light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to refusal of reappointment or aggregation of service period as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)