[1] Legal nature of a private school teacher appointment contract

[2] Where the contract for appointment of associate professor is revoked, whether the contract for appointment of assistant professor already terminated is terminated (negative)

[1] Although a contract for the appointment of a teacher of a private school takes place according to the procedure under the Private School Act, its legal nature is not different from the employment contract under the private school law, if there are grounds for invalidation or cancellation in the declaration of intention of the parties to the contract concerning the conclusion of the contract, the other party can, as a matter of course, claim the invalidation or cancellation of the contract for the appointment of an associate professor, deny or extinguish the legal effect of the contract. Thus, the cancellation of the contract for the appointment of an associate professor is merely a cancellation of the employment contract under the private law, and the cancellation of the contract for the appointment

[2] Article 2 of the Private School Act on the appointment and dismissal of university faculty members seems to have the purpose of guaranteeing the status of faculty members for each position separately for each position, and thus, in light of such purport, the act of appointing a person who has been appointed as an associate professor at the same university as an associate professor at the same university is not an act of simply appointing an associate professor based on the act of appointing an associate professor, but an act of establishing a new status relationship with which a person who has been appointed as an associate professor is an associate professor at the same university. Thus, the contract for the appointment of an associate professor which has been revoked

[1] Articles 140 and 655 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 53-2 of the Private School Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da5425 delivered on January 20, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 882) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da15479 delivered on August 26, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2525) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da5093 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1538), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu487 delivered on September 10, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2793)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

School Foundation Shipbuilding University (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 94Na4331 delivered on January 18, 1995

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant, who became aware of the fact that the paper, which was submitted as research results necessary for promotion of associate professor while the plaintiff was in the position of assistant professor, plagiarism, was punished for three months of suspension from office against the plaintiff without cancelling the above contract for appointment of associate professor, and had the plaintiff continue to work under the position of associate professor, and thereby ratified the above contract for appointment of associate professor. The defendant's rejection of the above contract for appointment of associate professor merely because the defendant was subject to the above disciplinary action against the plaintiff, is justified, and there is no error of law such as the theory of litigation.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Although the contract for the appointment of a teacher of a private school takes place according to the procedure prescribed by the Private School Act, if the legal nature of the contract is not different from the employment contract under private law, and if there is any ground for invalidation or revocation in the declaration of intention of the parties to the contract, the other party can automatically assert the invalidation or revocation of the contract for the appointment and reject or extinguish the legal effect accordingly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da55425, Jan. 20, 1995; 94Da15479, Aug. 26, 1994). Thus, the cancellation of the contract for the appointment of an associate professor of this case is nothing more than the cancellation of the employment contract under private law, and it cannot be deemed that the cancellation of the contract for the appointment of an associate professor of this case has the nature of disciplinary action or disciplinary action, and it must undergo a prescribed disciplinary

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as the theory of lawsuit.

3. The third and fourth points shall be considered both.

The provisions of the Private School Act on the appointment and dismissal of associate professors in universities and colleges show that the purpose of guaranteeing the status of teaching staff during the term of appointment determined by the title of each position is to ensure the status of teaching staff. In light of such purport, the act of appointing an associate professor in the same university is not a simple act of issuing assistant professors based on the act of appointing assistant professors, but it is reasonable to see that the title of the associate professor is an act of establishing a new status relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu487 delivered on September 10, 1993). Thus, the defendant's revocation of the appointment contract of associate professor as of April 1, 1992, which was already terminated, did not lead to the conclusion of the appointment contract of assistant professor as of September 1, 199, and there is no further error in the conclusion of the contract between the plaintiff and the assistant professor as of October 1, 1993 and the defendant's payment of wages to the same position as the above assistant professor.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)