The application of the provisions on guarantee of status under Article 56 of the Private School Act to the administrative affairs and employees who have qualifications for teachers.

The case

The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that where a school foundation has a right to guarantee the status of a teacher under Article 56 of the Private School Act, even though it is an employee who is not a teacher, if it has a right to guarantee the status of a teacher under Article 56 of the Private School Act, even though it is an employee who is not a teacher, if it has a right to guarantee the status of a teacher under Article 79 of the Education Act and Article 52 of the Private

Articles 53-2 and 56 (1) of the Private School Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

Plaintiff

Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of a school foundation

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na1519 delivered on September 1, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. Article 56 of the Private School Act provides that a private school teacher shall not be subject to any unfavorable measure, such as punishment, disciplinary action, or dismissal against his/her will, and shall not be subject to any advice, except for reasons prescribed by this Act. Since the above provision aims to guarantee the status of a teacher, it shall apply only to a teacher appointed through an appointment procedure as provided in Article 53-2 of the Private School Act, and it shall not apply to a person who takes charge of a teacher's duties without undergoing an appointment procedure as provided in the above provision.

However, if a school juristic person has general affairs and employees who are qualified as teachers under Article 79 of the Education Act and Article 52 of the Private School Act, and has them work full-time in the same manner as teachers in lieu of vacant teachers, it shall be deemed that it has the right to receive a guarantee of status under Article 56 of the Private School Act, even if it is an employee who is not a teacher, even though it is an employee.

2. On June 4, 1981, the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance that the plaintiff was dismissed from office for more than 1981, 200 teachers under the name of the defendant 1's office and 9. The defendant was ordered to appoint the plaintiff 1's office and 9. It was also ordered to appoint the plaintiff 2 as a teacher for more than 9 hours in accordance with the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law.

The theory of lawsuit constitutes a temporary teacher and is excluded from the status guarantee subject to Article 54-4 (2) of the Private School Act. However, the Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 1990) which was enforced by the Defendant at the time when the Plaintiff was in charge of the Plaintiff’s duties and worked for the same full time as the teachers is allowed to employ private school teachers on a conditional basis (the proviso of Article 56 (1)), and there was no provision regarding temporary teachers as referred to in Article 54-4 of the amended Private School Act or Article 32 of the Public Educational Officials Act, and even according to the facts and records confirmed by the lower court, the Plaintiff is not appointed as a conditional teacher. Thus, the Plaintiff’s status cannot be excluded from the status guarantee subject to the proviso of Article 56 (1) of the Private School Act before the amendment. All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)