[1] The time when a private university faculty member employment contract is established

[2] Whether it constitutes an error in the important part of a legal act where a school foundation entered into a contract for the appointment of a teacher without knowing the fact by providing support without stating the teacher career in the application for the appointment of a teacher at a private university (negative)

[1] Although the right to appoint a teacher of a private university is ultimately the authority of the chief director of the school juristic person. However, the board of directors of the school juristic person approves the appointment proposal for the teacher to be appointed. On the same day, it is reasonable to deem that the appointment contract between the person to be appointed as a teacher and the school juristic person has been concluded and established as valid, as long as the said school juristic person approves the appointment appointment recommendation as a new teacher of the above university, and the person to be appointed as a teacher is requested to enter the above university in order to enter into an official contract. Upon accepting such request, the person to be appointed as a teacher was visited the above university and submitted to the above university after signing the appointment contract, the president of the above university affixed a seal on the position of the above person to enter into the contract of appointment, and then, the president of the university approved the appointment of the person to be appointed as a teacher according to the appointment contract, and then notified the president of the above university.

[2] Although a person to be appointed as a teacher did not state the teacher's career at the time of submitting a letter of support for teacher appointment to a private university, even if a person to be appointed as a teacher for domestic affairs intentionally omitted his/her school career, it is difficult to view that the person to be appointed as a teacher lacks morality to the extent that he/she is unable to perform his/her duties as a teacher for the above university. Moreover, it cannot be readily concluded that a school foundation entered into a contract of appointment with the teacher's career and/or doctor's degree period overlaps with that of the teacher's career and/or doctor's degree period. Therefore, even if the school foundation did not know of the

[1] Articles 52, 53-2, and 53-3 of the Private School Act / [2] Article 109 of the Civil Act, Articles 52, 53-2, and 53-3 of the Private School Act

Headhoho Lake (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

School Foundation Egymology (Attorney Final White-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 25, 2003

1. The Plaintiff confirms that he is a full-time lecturer in the field of politics and diplomacy in the social science department of the Korea War University operated by the Defendant.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 8, 15, Eul evidence 1 through 8, Eul evidence 10 through 27, Eul evidence 10 to 34 through 37 (including each number of proof), and Eul evidence 34 through 37 (including each number):

(a) Public announcement of employment of professors;

(1) Around August 16, 2002, the Korea Student University established and operated by the Defendant Corporation deliberated on and decided to employ new teachers for 14 fields including Korea in the field of social science and diplomacy of the said University (hereinafter “the instant field”) in the teachers’ personnel committee, which held on August 16, 2002, published a public announcement of the employment of professors of the Korea Student University in 2003, stating that the term of the said 14 fields was two years with regard to the said 14 fields of contract.

(2) On October 30, 2002, the Plaintiff submitted a letter of support for the appointment of professors who applied for the instant field to the Han Jae University. At the time, the Plaintiff did not enter in the column of career in the above letter of support for appointment that he worked as a teacher at the middle school annexed to the college of education at the National University from March 1, 1994 to August 26, 2002 (hereinafter “instant teacher’s career”).

(b) Results, etc. of the major examination and interview;

(1) On December 5, 2002, the Faculty Employment Review Committee notified the Plaintiff on December 7, 2002, on the basis of the result of the major review conducted by the major review committee that evaluated the academic background, career, research achievements, etc. of the person eligible for appointment in the instant field, that the Plaintiff was selected as a person eligible for an interview on the instant field, based on the results of the interview examination conducted by the Plaintiff and one other.

(2) On December 13, 2002, on the part of the president of the above university, the Plaintiff held a review committee for recruitment of teachers to take charge of interview while the president of the above university attended the interview and interview the applicants selected as eligible for interview. As a result, the Plaintiff remains in the comprehensive review due to the gap in points in a major examination even though the Plaintiff first participated in the interview examination.

(3) However, notwithstanding the foregoing comprehensive evaluation, the professors belonging to the Department of Social Studies of Korea recommended the president of the above university to determine the Plaintiff as the person to be selected, taking into account the development of the department and the special characteristics of the instant field. The president of the University reserved once the person to be selected in the instant field, and requested the teachers’ personnel committee to discuss the issue of determining the person to be selected in the instant field by reflecting the aforementioned political diplomacy’s opinion. On January 14, 2003, the teachers’ personnel committee recommended the president of the above university to respect the opinion of the professors belonging to the said university who are domestic academic degree to be selected as the person to be selected in consideration of the special characteristics of the instant field.

(c) Recommendation for appointment.

(1) The president of the Korea Teachers’ University decided to recommend the appointment of the Plaintiff to the board of directors of a defendant foundation upon the recommendation of the teachers’ personnel committee, and requested the teachers’ personnel committee to approve the proposal. On January 16, 2003, the teachers’ personnel committee changed the consent and recommended to recommend the appointment to the board of directors of the defendant foundation on the same day (hereinafter “instant proposal”).

On the other hand, on January 21, 2003, the National University notified the Plaintiff that the president of the National University was recommended to recommend the appointment of the instant case to the board of directors of the Defendant Corporation, and requested the said university to submit various documents, etc. necessary for new appointment by January 30, 2003.

(2) On January 28, 2003, the board of directors of the Defendant Corporation approved and resolved on the recommendation for appointment of this case. The faculty of the Korea War University immediately notified the Plaintiff that nine persons including the Plaintiff became final and conclusive as new teachers upon approval by the board of directors of the Defendant Corporation regarding the recommendation for appointment of this case. In order to enter into a contract for new appointment, the board of directors of the Defendant Corporation notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the nine persons including the Plaintiff became final and conclusive as new teachers, and requested the Plaintiff to visit the said university by the first week of February 2003.

(3) Next, on January 29, 2003, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a personnel record card of private school faculty members to the pertinent university. At the time, the Plaintiff additionally stated the instant teacher’s career in the career column of the said personnel record card, and submitted a certificate of career in the name of the principal proving it.

(4) In addition, on February 7, 2003, the Plaintiff visited the Shipping University and submitted a contract to appoint the Plaintiff as a full-time lecturer in the field of this case from March 1, 2003 to February 28, 2005, stating that the Defendant Corporation would appoint the Plaintiff as a full-time lecturer in the field of this case, and signed the name and signed in the area of the person to be appointed.

On the other hand, the above appointment contract is in the form of a letter, stating the portion printed as "the President (person) of the National Institute of Arts" and "the President (person) of the National Institute of Arts" and "the person to enter into the contract" as "the person to be appointed". Thus, the president of the above university requested the defendant corporation to affix his official seal to "the person to enter into the contract" on the date on which the plaintiff submitted the above appointment contract signed by the plaintiff and affix his official seal to the "the person to whom the contract was signed" and affix his official seal to the "the person to whom the appointment contract was signed by the plaintiff."

(5) On February 26, 2003, the defendant corporation obtained approval from the president on the proposal for appointment from the president, and notified the president of the above university that nine persons including the plaintiff were newly employed as full-time instructors.

(d) Cancellation, etc. of appointment decisions;

(1) On February 21, 2003, in the course of confirming that the Plaintiff received a career certificate, etc. necessary for calculating the salary class from the Plaintiff and submitted a letter of support for the appointment of professors to the said university, the Plaintiff found the omission of the instant teacher career, and the president of the said university requested that the Plaintiff discuss the issue of omitting the career experience of the instant teacher in the faculty personnel committee.

(2) On February 27, 2003, the teacher personnel committee requested the defendant corporation to suspend a decision to appoint the plaintiff as a full-time lecturer on February 27, 2003 as a full-time lecturer, and on February 28, 2003, the defendant corporation notified the above president of the university to suspend a decision to appoint the plaintiff as a full-time lecturer on February 28, 2003 as a full-time lecturer, as it intentionally omitted the plaintiff's teacher's career in the instant case as being disadvantageous to the appointment of professor. The plaintiff's teacher's career in the instant case overlaps with the teacher's career in the instant case and the achievement of studies may arise.

(3) After that, on March 12, 2003, the faculty personnel committee deliberated and decided to revoke the decision to appoint the Plaintiff as a full-time lecturer. On March 19, 2003, the president of the above university requested the revocation of the decision to appoint the Plaintiff as a full-time lecturer. On April 17, 2003, the Defendant corporation decided to revoke the decision to appoint the Plaintiff as a full-time lecturer at the board of directors held on April 17, 2003. On April 18, 2003, the Defendant corporation notified the president of the above university of the revocation of the decision to appoint the Plaintiff as a full-time lecturer, and on April 28, 2003, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff

E. Provisions pertaining to new appointment of teachers of defendant corporation

Article 43 (Voluntary Amnesty)

(1) The head of a school to be established and operated by this corporation shall be appointed and dismissed by the chairperson following a resolution of the board of directors, the term of office of which shall be four years, and he/she may be reappointed: Provided, That the method of recommending candidates for the

(3) Teachers other than those under paragraph (1) shall be appointed or dismissed by the president upon the recommendation of the principal of a school after deliberation by the personnel committee.

Article 52 (Functions of Personnel Committee)

(1) The personnel committee for the dispatch university shall deliberate on the following matters:

1. The consent of the president to recommend appointment and dismissal when the president intends to recommend appointment and dismissal of professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and full-time instructors;

Article 9 (Appointment Period, etc.)

(1) New teachers shall be appointed under a contract system with the following specified terms and conditions:

(4) An appointment contract under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be concluded in writing, and detailed matters concerning terms and conditions of a contract shall be determined after deliberation by the personnel committee.

(d) Article 6 of the Regulations on New Employment of Teachers.

The procedures for new employment of teachers shall be as follows:

6. Public announcement of appointment of professors;

7. Receipt of support documents;

8. Major Examination Committee;

9. Examinations of teachers employment screening committees and determination of persons subject to interviews;

10. Examinations for interview (Examination Committee for Employment of Teachers and the President of UNIST);

11. Decision on a person to be selected;

12. Consent to recommend an appointment for a prospective appointment and preparation of a written contract;

13. Recommendation for appointment to a corporation board of directors;

14. Appointment of chief director;

2. Determination as to whether an appointment contract for the plaintiff is concluded

A. According to the above facts, the right to appoint a faculty member of a university is ultimately deemed to have the authority of the president of the defendant foundation. However, on January 28, 2003, the board of directors of the defendant foundation approved the appointment of the Plaintiff as a faculty member of the above university through the board of directors of the defendant foundation. On the same day, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to enter the above university to enter into an official contract for the appointment of a new faculty member of the above university. Upon visiting the above university on February 7, 2003 upon receipt of the said request, the Plaintiff submitted it to the above university after signing the appointment contract, and the president affixed a seal on the above appointment contract with the position of the "consigner," and thereafter, as long as the president of the defendant foundation approved the appointment of the Plaintiff as a faculty member according to the appointment contract and notified the fact to the president of the above university, it is reasonable to deem that the appointment contract between the Plaintiff and the defendant foundation was concluded and effective.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) Even if a valid teacher appointment contract was concluded between the Plaintiff, the Defendant intentionally submitted a letter of support for teachers who omitted the career of the instant teacher to the Plaintiff and received high points from the Review Committee in the process of selecting the person to be selected, such as a major examination. The Plaintiff’s act revealed that the Plaintiff’s above act lacks morality as a university faculty member. Since the Plaintiff’s act overlaps with the career of the instant teacher and the degree of academic achievement, etc., the Defendant’s decision of appointment was revoked, and thus, the Plaintiff lost its status as a teacher of the said university.

(2) As seen above, although the Plaintiff did not enter the instant teacher’s career at the time of submitting an application for the appointment of a teacher to the said university as seen above, even if the Plaintiff intentionally omitted the instant teacher’s career as asserted by the Defendant corporation, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff lacks morality to the extent that the Plaintiff could not perform his duties as a teacher of the said university. Moreover, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant teacher’s career overlaps with the instant teacher’s degree period, and that the Plaintiff lacks quality and ability as a university faculty member.

Therefore, even if the defendant corporation concluded the appointment contract of this case with the plaintiff's knowledge of the above teacher's experience, it cannot be viewed as an error in the important part of the juristic act, so the cancellation of the appointment contract of the defendant corporation is invalid.

3. Conclusion

Thus, according to the appointment contract acknowledged above, the plaintiff has the status of full-time lecturer belonging to the defendant's social university operated by the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of such status is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Poe-dae (Presiding Judge)