Whether the appointment of a university professor, etc. whose appointment period has expired falls under the discretionary action of the appointment authority (affirmative), and whether the refusal by the head of university to appoint a university professor, etc. or to recommend the appointment by reason of the rejection by the university personnel committee can be seen as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power (negative in principle)

Article 25 of the Public Educational Officials Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7818 Decided September 28, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1836) Supreme Court Decision 2008Du13705 Decided March 26, 2009

Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Lee Woo-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan National University President (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Yoon Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2011Nu822 decided January 4, 2012

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order to require university professors, etc. to have high-level specialized knowledge, teaching ability, personality, etc. and when the term of appointment expires, the appointment authority needs to decide whether to re-appoint a university professor whose term of appointment expires in consideration of such various circumstances. Ultimately, it belongs to discretionary action according to the decision of the appointment authority. In particular, Article 25 of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 11066, Sep. 30, 201) provides that the head of a university shall obtain consent from the university personnel committee in appointing or recommending the appointment of professors, etc. in accordance with objective standards. The head of a university intends to restrain the appointment authority such as professors, etc. or appointment-recommendation authority and to secure excellent teachers at the same time by establishing personnel order in accordance with objective standards. Thus, the head of a university’s personnel committee’s refusal to appoint or recommend a university professor, etc. on the ground that the consent to appointment was rejected by the university personnel committee may not be deemed to have abused or abused discretion unless there are any special circumstances to deem that it has considerably lost validity under social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du37284.

The lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff did not have the duty to review the appointment period of the Plaintiff on March 1, 2004; and (b) the Plaintiff was appointed as an assistant professor on March 1, 2004 to February 29, 200; (c) the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the expiration of the term of appointment on October 9, 207; and (d) the Plaintiff submitted a request for extension of documents regarding the appointment of the Plaintiff to the Director of the Korea Broadcasting Commission on October 31, 2007, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have the duty to review the appointment period of the Plaintiff at least 0 years after the date of re-employment of the Plaintiff’s research institute; and (e) the Plaintiff did not have the duty to review the appointment period of the Plaintiff at least 1 to review the Plaintiff’s new contract at the Busan National University’s University’s University’s University’s University’s University’s 200 research institute’s 20-year research institute’s 20-year research institute.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below's measures are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to deviation and abuse of discretionary power with respect to the rejection disposition of re-contract appointment by professors, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or in violation of logical and empirical rules while selecting evidence, and comparing and evaluating the probative value of evidence as to the procedure and circumstances of the disposition in this case.

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.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)