In case where a private school teacher is dismissed for a reason different from that of dismissal during a lawsuit seeking nullification of removal from position, whether there is benefit of confirmation (negative)

In a case where a private school teacher is dismissed by the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee of the Ministry of Education for reasons different from those of dismissal during the proceeding of a lawsuit seeking nullification of removal from his position, the above removal from his position cannot be a valid and appropriate means for the claim of confirmation of past legal relations even if the removal from position is null and void, and the above lawsuit cannot be a valid and appropriate means for the change of the amount of benefits due to the failure or invalidity of the removal from position. Even though the previous records of the removal from position are subject to the assignment of position, decision of assignment, evaluation of training and work performance, promotion or special promotion, and future disadvantage or restriction for the teacher of the private school, such disadvantage or restriction is a disadvantage arising from the process of the school of the school of the school of the school of the school which has made the disposition. The above teacher has already been dismissed and loses his status, and it cannot be said that there is no disadvantage for the public official or teacher of the school of the school of the school of the school of which the disposition has already been made, and it cannot be viewed that the above removal from position and interest under the law are unlawful.

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 58-2 (1) of the Private School Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da4011 delivered on April 11, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1826) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12347 delivered on December 5, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 265) Supreme Court Decision 96Da10027 delivered on October 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3313)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant School Foundation

Gwangju High Court Decision 95Na2189 delivered on May 30, 1996

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The court below found the following facts based on the macro-visual evidence.

A. The Plaintiff was indicted for violating the National Security Act on December 30, 1991, while he was appointed on March 1, 1985 as a high school teacher established and operated by the Defendant corporation, and the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on this ground.

B. After the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking nullification of the above removal from position, the defendant dismissed the plaintiff on November 30, 1993, and the plaintiff filed a request for a review with the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee of the Ministry of Education, and the said Review Committee made a decision to reduce the removal on March 31, 1994.

2. On the other hand, as the court below decided properly, the plaintiff does not have the status as a teacher based on the time of closing of argument in the court below after being dismissed by the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee of the Ministry of Education. Thus, even if the above removal from position is null and void, the lawsuit of nullification of the removal from position cannot be a valid and appropriate means for the claim of confirmation of legal relations in the past. The lawsuit of this case cannot be a valid and appropriate means for the change of the amount of benefits due to the suspension or invalidity of the removal from position. Even though the power of the removal from position requires the assignment of position as a teacher of a private school, the decision of assignment from position, the evaluation of training and service performance, promotion or special promotion, and the disadvantage or restriction in future disciplinary action, such disadvantage or restriction is a disadvantage arising from the process of the school of the defendant corporation which made the disposition of this case, on the condition that the plaintiff works at the school of the defendant corporation which made the disposition of this case. The plaintiff has already been dismissed after the appointment of a public official or teacher, and there is no ground for appeal that the removal from position itself cannot be justified.

3. The lower court’s dismissal of the instant lawsuit only judged on the merits of the instant case at home, and thus, the allegation in the grounds of appeal on the merits of the instant case cannot be accepted without further review.

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

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)