[1] Whether the revised rules of employment applies to a worker who accepted the working conditions under the revised rules of employment and acquired the employment relationship, even though the revised rules of employment was not effective in relation to the existing worker due to the worker's failure to obtain consent from the employee (affirmative)

[2] Whether a private university teacher appointed as a fixed-term teacher loses his status as a university faculty member upon expiration of the term of appointment (affirmative with qualification)

[3] Where the issue is whether the revised remuneration provision, which is the revised rules of employment, is applicable to the faculty member of the private university reappointed as an assistant professor, the case holding that the revised remuneration provision, which is the revised rules of employment, should be applied since the above faculty member is reappointed as an assistant professor after the expiration of the term of appointment, barring special circumstances, since the above faculty member was reappointed as an assistant professor after the amendment of the rules of employment, it should be deemed that the revised rules of employment should be applied

[1] Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act/ [2] Article 53-2 of the Private School Act / [3] Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 53-2 of the Private School Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da45165 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 546), Supreme Court Decision 92Da39778 delivered on January 15, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 710), Supreme Court Decision 94Da30638 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 164) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da52647 Delivered on March 9, 2006 (Gong206Sang, 569), Supreme Court Decision 2003Da2622 delivered on March 9, 206 (Gong206Sang, 565)

Plaintiff

The Medical Institute of Health and Welfare (Law Firm New Daily, Attorneys Cho Yong-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2008Na6098 Decided June 26, 2009

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

When an employer amends terms and conditions of employment under the rules of employment to a disadvantage to an employee without the consent of the employee, the effect of the amendment does not extend to the existing relationship with respect to the employee whose vested interests are infringed, and the validity of the previous rules of employment remains intact. However, the revised rules of employment should be naturally applied to the relationship with the employee who accepted working conditions under the amended rules of employment and acquired employment relations after the amendment (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da45165, Dec. 22, 1992, etc.). Meanwhile, a teacher of a private university or college, appointed for a specified period, has the right to demand a fair review on the expectation or renewal of reappointment according to reasonable standards, unless there are special circumstances, such as a school juristic person’s articles of incorporation or personnel management agreement, or a continuous renewal of employment contract, and a teacher’s status ceases to exist due to the expiration of his/her employment period unless reappointed by such review (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da42334, Jul. 29, 2010).

After recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, the lower court determined that since the Defendant’s articles of incorporation or personnel regulations of the Asia Automobile University operated by the Defendant provide for the duty of reappointment of teachers, the reappointment of faculty members of the Asia Automobile University shall be made upon the conclusion of a new employment contract with the teachers and the Defendant Educational Foundation after the expiration of the former employment period, barring special circumstances, since the Plaintiff was reappointed as an assistant professor on March 1, 200 and March 1, 2003, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have accepted working conditions under the amended rules of employment and entered into a new employment contract, and thus, the revised rules of remuneration, which are the revised rules of employment, shall apply to the Plaintiff thereafter.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legal nature of a fixed-term teacher appointment contract 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)