A. Whether a disposition of dismissal of a school foundation for a private school teacher can be deemed a disposition by an administrative agency subject to an administrative litigation (negative)

(b) Whether a decision of the Review Committee is an administrative disposition where a teacher of private school requests a review to the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee within the Ministry of Education pursuant to the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status for dismissal of an educational foundation (affirmative)

A. Since a private school teacher is appointed and dismissed by a school juristic person or an operator of a private school, the relationship between a private school teacher and a school juristic person cannot be viewed as the power relationship under the public law, it cannot be viewed as a disposition by an administrative agency that is subject to a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a disposition of dismissal of a school juristic person for a private school teacher. Therefore, an objection against a school juristic person cannot be based on administrative litigation

B. Although there are methods of filing a petition for reexamination with the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee established in the Ministry of Education pursuant to Articles 7 through 10 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status outside the Civil Procedure and filing an administrative litigation against the decision of the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee, an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation is not deemed an administrative disposition, nor an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation is deemed an administrative disposition by the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee's Disciplinary Decision, and it cannot be deemed that the decision of the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee's Disciplinary Review Committee's Disciplinary Decision constitutes an administrative appeal.

(a) Article 53-2 of the Private School Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 2(2) and 19(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 10(3) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status; Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu2103 Decided September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1518)

[Judgment of the court below]

Judgment of the court below as to the legal representative of a school foundation;

Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee of the Ministry of Education

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu27992 delivered on July 16, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

Each costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal as to the Plaintiff’s U.S. Teaching Institutes for the Defendant Educational Foundation and the ground of appeal No. 1 and No. 2 as well.

As an educational institution in charge of the daily interest of national public education, a private school teacher receives guidance, support, and regulation from the State or a local government in its establishment, operation, appointment, and dismissal of the teacher, etc. under the Educational Act and the Private School Act, and receives treatment corresponding to the national or public school teacher in terms of his qualifications, service, appointment, dismissal, and guarantee of status, etc., the private school teacher is appointed and dismissed by the school juristic person or the private school manager (Articles 53 and 53-2 of the Private School Act) and the relation between the private school teacher and the school juristic person cannot be deemed as the power relation under public law, such as theory. Thus, the disposition of dismissal of the school juristic person for the private school teacher cannot be deemed as the disposition of an administrative agency subject to revocation litigation pursuant to Article 1, Article 2, and the main sentence of Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Accordingly, an appeal against the school juristic person is not subject to administrative litigation

On the other hand, as a remedy for dismissal of private school teachers, there are methods of filing a request for reexamination with the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee established in the Ministry of Education pursuant to Articles 7 through 10 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status and filing an administrative litigation against the decision of the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee. However, in this case, the administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation does not regard the decision of the Park Disciplinary Review Committee as an administrative disposition, nor can it be deemed that the decision of the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee constitutes an administrative appeal.

Therefore, in the same purport, the court below's decision to dismiss the lawsuit against the defendant school juristic person for the cancellation of the dismissal disposition of this case against the defendant school juristic person on the ground that it is unlawful, and the decision of the court below to consider the review decision of the defendant school teachers disciplinary review committee as an administrative disposition subject to the revocation lawsuit under the main sentence of Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 3 by Defendant Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee.

Examining the relevant evidence in comparison with the records, we affirm the decision of the court below that rejected some of the grounds for the disciplinary action or dismissal against the plaintiff by the defendant school foundation, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, or incomplete deliberation, etc. The argument is nothing more than criticizeing the preparation of evidence and fact-finding within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and it cannot be accepted.

3. Accordingly, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.