A. Whether a school juristic person’s articles of incorporation recognizes the right to challenge a member of the teachers’ disciplinary committee, even if there is no provision regarding the challenge (affirmative)

(b) The case holding that where a person subject to disciplinary action renders part of the grounds for disciplinary action against the person subject to disciplinary action against whom the person subject to disciplinary action criticizes Gap by ordering Gap's name through inducement, it does not constitute grounds for exclusion under Article 63 of the Private School Act but constitutes grounds for challenge;

(c) Whether a dismissal disposition based on the above disciplinary resolution is effective where a ground for challenge exists to any one of the members involved in a resolution following a dismissal resolution by the disciplinary committee, but excludes the opinion of the member (affirmative)

(d) Whether the disclosure of the list of members of the teachers' disciplinary committee and the exercise of the right to challenge is hindered;

A. Even if there was no provision regarding the exclusion of a member of the disciplinary committee in the articles of incorporation at the time of the resolution to dismiss the teachers’ disciplinary committee of a private university, if the provision regarding the exclusion of a member was established by amending the articles of incorporation after the decision to dismiss the member, in light of the general legal principles as to disciplinary action, the fairness of disciplinary proceedings should not be ensured, inasmuch as there is no conflict between the person subject to disciplinary action and the person with an interest in the person subject to disciplinary action, or with the hostile interests,

C. In a case where it is found that one of the members involved in the above resolution was challenged after all of the members of the disciplinary committee made a heavy disciplinary opinion of dismissal or higher, even though excluding the opinion of the member, if the requirement for disciplinary resolution is satisfied, it cannot be deemed that the illegality of the procedure affected the disciplinary resolution, and thus, a dismissal disposition based on such procedure is valid

D. In regard to the publication of the list of members of the teachers' disciplinary committee, unless otherwise stipulated in the articles of association or laws of the school juristic person, it cannot be deemed that the disciplinary committee has decided on the disciplinary committee without disclosing the list of members, thereby hindering the disciplinary person from exercising his/her right to request the challenge.

(a)Article 63, d. Article 66 of the Private School Act;

Plaintiff

National Institute of Education for School Foundation

Seoul High Court Decision 89Da29363 delivered on September 17, 1991

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

On June 22, 1989, the president of the Korea University established for Management of the Defendant confirms that his dismissal against the Plaintiff is null and void.

1. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant, as the plaintiff was dismissed on June 22, 1989 under Article 61 of the Private School Act, lost his status as a teacher, and therefore there is no legal interest in the lawsuit to seek a nullification of the removal from position. Thus, this case's defense is examined. The plaintiff sought a nullification of the removal from position as of May 11, 1989 in the complaint, and it is obvious in the record that the plaintiff is seeking a confirmation of the invalidity of the removal from position as of June 22, 1989 by the correction of the purport of the claim at the court below (as of October 5, 1989). Thus, the above defense based on the premise that the plaintiff is seeking a nullification of the removal from position.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. On June 19, 1989, the teachers' disciplinary committee of Korea University established by the defendant foundation decided to dismiss the plaintiff under Articles 65(1), 66, and 61(1) and (2) of the articles of incorporation of the defendant foundation on the ground that the plaintiff, who was employed as a professor of the above university of Korea University, committed a misconduct falling under the grounds for disciplinary action under Article 61(1) of the Private School Act. Accordingly, on June 22, 1989, the plaintiff was dismissed from office by the head of the Korea National University under his jurisdiction on June 22, 1989. The above grounds for disciplinary action spread obvious false facts outside the scope of the illegality column of the above grounds for disciplinary action, thereby impairing the authority of the Korea National University and the dignity of the professors, (2) education, academic and research ability is inappropriate, (3) damage the image of the university in consideration, damaged the reputation of the principal of the university in consideration, and caused a false public conviction against the principal of the university.

B. The disposition of dismissal of the plaintiff by the president of Korea University constitutes (1) a violation of Article 63 of the Private School Act and Article 63 of the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation, which provides for the grounds for exclusion of the members of the teachers' disciplinary committee. (2) The disposition of dismissal of the plaintiff by the president of Korea University constitutes a violation of Article 65 (1) of the same Act and Article 64 (1) of the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation, which provides that the committee of disciplinary action should investigate facts in a disciplinary case. (c) The disposition of dismissal of the plaintiff is null and void, and it is also one of the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff, and even if the plaintiff's dismissal of the plaintiff by the president of Korea University constitutes a violation by the above president, and most of its members were subject to such violation, and thus, the above disciplinary committee's dismissal of the plaintiff, which is an unlawful disciplinary action against the plaintiff, is not unlawful in light of the legal principles of disciplinary action against the plaintiff's rejection or abuse of its rights. (2) The plaintiff's dismissal of the plaintiff's disciplinary action cannot be deemed null and void.

C. First, we examine the existence of the procedural invalidation of the above disciplinary action.

(1) The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the following facts in light of the following facts: Gap evidence No. 1-3, Eul evidence No. 1-1-5, Eul evidence No. 4-1-9, Eul evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 13, Eul evidence No. 14-1, 12, Eul evidence No. 14-2, Gap evidence No. 2, 3, Gap evidence No. 5-1, 2, 7-101, Eul evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 8, the witness No. 6 of the court below, and Eul evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 14-2, Gap evidence No. 5-1, 7-101, the testimony of the court below, the witness No. 6 of the court below's testimony.

(A) According to Article 60(11) and (4) of the articles of incorporation as of June 19, 1989 (which was in force before February 15, 199; hereinafter referred to as the “former articles of incorporation”) as of June 19, 1989, the National Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee of a defendant corporation shall be composed of seven persons (including one chairperson) appointed by the principal from among the teachers of the relevant school under the control of the Committee. Article 63 of the former Articles of incorporation provides that “When a member of the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee examines a disciplinary case or has a relationship with a person under disciplinary action, he/she shall not participate in the deliberation of the relevant disciplinary case.” In addition, Article 64(1) of the former Articles of incorporation provides that “the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee shall investigate the truth in the deliberation of a disciplinary case, and shall hear the statement of the principal before the resolution is made: Provided, That if a request is not made in writing more than twice, a disciplinary decision may be made clearly in the records and with the consent of a majority of all incumbent members present members.”

(B) Article 59(1) of the amended Articles of Incorporation (hereinafter "New Articles of Incorporation") and Article 59(2) of the amended Articles of Incorporation (hereinafter "New Articles of Incorporation") are enforced since February 15, 190. The members of the Teachers' Disciplinary Committee shall be appointed by the president following a resolution of the board of directors from among the teachers of the school or the directors of the school foundation in question: Provided, That the number of members of the school foundation shall not exceed 1/2 of the members; and Article 63-2 of the Act on the Challenge of Members was newly established. Article 63(1) of the same Act provides that "A person subject to disciplinary action may, if there are reasonable grounds to recognize that a member of the Teachers' Disciplinary Committee is likely to make an unfair resolution, make a written explanation of such fact and apply for challenge." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "When an application for challenge is filed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1), the challenged person shall not participate in the resolution."

(C) On May 11, 1989, the president of the Korea University lost the basic qualities as professors by damaging the personality and dignity as educators inside and outside the country, ② lack of teaching and academic research capacity, ③ repeating acts leading to the creation of a Myeonmatic crisis, ④ repeating acts in the school and the society with the responsibility of the university and the society, ⑤ destroying the order of the university society on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 61(1) of the Private School Act, and at the same time demanding a disciplinary resolution against the said university teachers’ disciplinary committee.

(D) On May 1989, the president of the above university requested the recommendation of the members of the teachers' disciplinary committee to organize the teachers' disciplinary committee at the above university’s meeting. The president of the university around that time discussed the recommendation of the members of the teachers’ disciplinary committee. At the meeting, the principal of the graduate school who is a senior professor at the higher level according to the standard of selection of the members of the teachers’ disciplinary committee, but the principal of the graduate school who is the senior professor at the higher level according to practice. In light of the nature of the disciplinary procedure, the disciplinary procedure is a quasi-judicial procedure, and the disciplinary procedure is accordingly determined to include the representative of the law school. The principal of the law school who is the general manager of the teachers’ affairs administration and the senior executive officer of the graduate school belonging to the principal of the school and the president of the teachers’ disciplinary committee, on behalf of the president of the non-party 1, the president of the university and the non-party 2, the president of the university and the non-party 3, the president of the above teachers’ committee, and the non-party 7, the president.

(E) The Korea Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee held nine meetings from May 16, 1989 to June 19, 19 of the same year, and collected and examined the Plaintiff’s published statements, newspaper articles, various documentary evidence, etc. (Evidence B(Evidence B(Evidence B(Evidence B(6)). In addition, each of the disciplinary members conducted an investigation into the authenticity of the Plaintiff’s assertion against the relevant persons during the said period, and conducted an investigation into the truth by the Committee, including by investigating the authenticity of the Plaintiff’s assertion against the relevant persons during the period.

(F) On May 30 of the same year, the above teachers’ disciplinary committee sent a notice of attendance to the Plaintiff by delivery to the Plaintiff on June 8, 1989 in order to give the Plaintiff an opportunity to state his opinion at a meeting of the disciplinary committee held on June 16:00, but returned due to the unknown address, and again sent the notice of attendance to the Plaintiff on June 30 of the same year, but the Plaintiff was not present at the Plaintiff. On June 9, 198, the above teachers’ disciplinary committee sent a notice of attendance to the Plaintiff on June 16:00 of the same month to the Plaintiff on June 15, 1989, but the Plaintiff sent the notice of attendance by delivery to the Plaintiff on June 14, 1989. However, the Plaintiff appointed a member of the disciplinary committee without consultation with the professors’ council, and did not send a letter of refusal to attend the meeting to the effect that it is doubtful that fairness in the deliberation was not disclosed.

(G) As a result of the final deliberation on the Plaintiff’s disciplinary case on June 19 of the same year, the above disciplinary committee’s dismissal decision was defective on the ground of the disciplinary cause as recognized in Section 2(a) of the same year, and Nonparty 8’s criticism that Nonparty 2, 4, and 5, among the disciplinary committee’s members, were one of the disciplinary causes, and it was unfair that Nonparty 8’s president appointed the disciplinary committee. In addition, since Nonparty 2, 4, and 5 were those related to illegal admission, the disciplinary committee’s dismissal decision was requested on the ground that the disciplinary committee’s dismissal opinion was unfair, and the dismissal decision became final and conclusive on October 17 of the same year by the Defendant Review Committee.

(h) However, since December 1986, until the dismissal disposition of this case is rendered, the Plaintiff prepared and distributed a public letter or printed matter in which the Plaintiff made and distributed a statement of criticism or defamation against the President of Korea University and the professors of the same case on several occasions, and which is directly or indirectly related to Nonparty 8’s president and the disciplinary committee members appointed by the above disciplinary committee members, are as follows.

① On several occasions since March 3, 1989, the Plaintiff was responsible for Nonparty 8’s denial of entrance examinations by manipulation of points, etc., the Plaintiff’s withdrawal and aiding and abetting of public funds, and high-class hospital labor pressure, etc. In addition, Nonparty 8’s election was produced and distributed printed materials with the effect that the election of Nonparty 8 was invalid. The Plaintiff revealed that some of the audit results on admission examinations by students and Plaintiff et al. were issued from May 15, 1989 to June 25, 1989, and that some of the audit results on admission examinations by the Plaintiff et al. were taken place. On June 30, 198, the Defendant corporation demanded the dismissal of Nonparty 8 president on the part of the Defendant corporation, and the Prosecutor sought a fine of KRW 1,00,000 for the crime of interference with business on December 28, 1990, and the Prosecutor sought a summary order.

② Around December 1986, the Plaintiff made a false report on several professors as a confidential document, and reported it to the president and the principal of the school affairs. The Plaintiff prepared and distributed a public letter of intent to the effect that it is presumed to have been reported to other agencies. Around February 1987, the criteria for selecting new students of Korea University Policy and Abuse Institute were considerably unreasonable and non-educationally determined by the principle set by the faculty council of the university. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was able to enter only famous persons. Accordingly, the Plaintiff prepared and distributed a printed document that the president who instructed the policy and the president of the non-party 4 Policy Science School, who planned the policy, are responsible to the president of the university.

③ Around June 1989, the head of the above sentence issued at the time of the Plaintiff and students’ wrongful admission to the school was erroneous in failing to set the detailed guidelines for the selection of new graduate school students, and Nonparty 6 of the principal of the school did not prepare the meeting minutes of the school affairs committee. The Minister of Education requested the Defendant corporation to take a warning measure on the ground that Nonparty 6 did not prepare the meeting minutes of the school affairs committee.

④ Of the Plaintiff’s written disclosure to Nonparty 8 president, the content that admission of a specific person to a management graduate school is erroneous, but Nonparty 2, who is a disciplinary committee member, is the principal graduate school.

⑤ In the grounds for the request for a retrial (Evidence 8) submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the request for a retrial, Nonparty 5’s professor admitted his/her father to his/her her son to his/her son and her son to his/her son campus and then unlawfully transferred him/her

(i) Meanwhile, the Korea National University has more than 670 professors, three graduate schools, such as food development graduate schools, in addition to those who are appointed as members of the above teachers' disciplinary committee, there are 11 presidents, such as the president of the management university, and four presidents, such as the planning director, in addition to the president of the law school.

(2) According to the above facts of recognition, since the above teachers' disciplinary committee conducted a fact-finding investigation necessary for the plaintiff's deliberation of the above disciplinary case, the above teachers' disciplinary committee' disciplinary committee's dismissal disposition against the plaintiff was made in violation of Article 65 (1) of the Private School Act and Article 64 (1) of the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation, which stipulate that the dismissal disposition against the plaintiff should investigate the fact-finding in the deliberation of the disciplinary case, and

(3) Next, the following facts are deemed to include the act of preparing and distributing a false letter or inducement that impairs the authority of Korea University by spreading false facts to the President of Korea University in addition to the school, thereby harming the dignity of personality and personality of the faculty members in the school, impairing the image of Korea University, and falsely harming the principal of the school, while not in the resolution of disciplinary action but in accordance with the materials I, II (No. 5 and VI evidence 6) and the review decision (No. 8), the Plaintiff’s act of causing disciplinary action against the President of Korea University or preparing and distributing the false letter or inducement that impairs the dignity of the faculty members in the school, so it is also one of the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff requested the President of Korea to appoint Nonparty 8, or committed an act detrimental to the personality or personality of the faculty members in the school, and it is inevitable that the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff was taken into account by the President’s disciplinary action and appointment of Nonparty 8, as well as the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s members in accordance with the relevant provision.

(4) In addition, the above disciplinary committee's deliberation of the plaintiff's disciplinary case by the above disciplinary committee members and the plaintiff's disciplinary committee members' above relation to the above disciplinary case does not constitute "when the defendant's disciplinary case is examined or related to the person under disciplinary action" as prescribed in Article 63 of the Private School Act and Article 63 of the former Articles of Incorporation of the defendant corporation. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the dismissal disposition of this case was made in violation of Article 63 of the same Act and Article 63 of the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation, which are mandatory laws that stipulate the grounds for exclusion of the

(5) However, even if the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation at the time of the resolution of dismissal of the case did not have a provision on the challenge of a member, the defendant corporation has a provision on the exclusion of a member as above, although the disciplinary action in this case was made after the decision of dismissal of the case, in light of the general legal principles as to disciplinary action, the amendment of the articles of incorporation to newly establish Article 63-2 on the challenge of a member, and the fact that the person who is subject to disciplinary action and who has an interest in the case is not a member of disciplinary action shall not be selected as a member of disciplinary action, so such person shall

(A) First, we examine whether Nonparty 1, the general graduate school principal, Nonparty 2, the management graduate school principal, Nonparty 5, the law graduate school principal, and Nonparty 6, the school principal, as disciplinary committee members, could make an unfair decision in the Plaintiff’s disciplinary case.

As a result, the plaintiff was notified by the head of the literature issuance department that the plaintiff would be subject to an audit of literature issuance by raising the problem of illegal entrance with the student, and the defendant was notified by the head of the general graduate school Nonparty 1 and the head of the school of warning or caution against the non-party 6, who is a disciplinary commissioner, the plaintiff's disciplinary commissioner, and all of the reasons were irrelevant to the illegal entrance in which the plaintiff et al. were involved, and the management graduate school problem alleged to be the plaintiff's admission of a specific person is also a slander against the non-party 8 president, and the name of the non-party 2 professor, who is the head of the graduate school, is not clear, and the name of the professor, who is the head of the graduate school, is not clear about the plaintiff's entrance, and the reasons why the above disciplinary commissioner was appointed after the dismissal resolution of the disciplinary committee of this case, and the reasons why the above disciplinary commissioner was appointed to the plaintiff, who is a disciplinary commissioner, are not appointed as a disciplinary commissioner, but is unlikely to be related to the plaintiff's disciplinary action as above.

(B) Next, we examine whether Nonparty 4 professor, who is the head of policy science graduate school and the head of regular graduate school, was likely to make an unfair decision in the Plaintiff’s disciplinary case as a disciplinary committee member.

According to the above facts of recognition, in light of the fact that the plaintiff criticizes the non-party 1, who is the head of the policy science graduate school and the head of the regular university, by directly ordering the name through the inducement, and the content and intensity of such criticism and attack against the above Han Ba-ho professor, as seen in paragraphs (1) (b) and (c) above, are part of the disciplinary reasons against the plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the non-party 4 professor is in a conflict or conflict of interest with the plaintiff as a person who received a direct personal attack from the plaintiff. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff might make an unfair decision in the deliberation of the plaintiff's disciplinary case, and therefore, it is unlawful that he participated in the deliberation and resolution of the disciplinary case against the plaintiff as a member of the teachers' disciplinary committee.

However, according to the facts acknowledged above, the above disciplinary committee's final deliberation on the plaintiff's disciplinary case and the decision of dismissal was made after the third member's dismissal opinion, and the fourth member's dismissal opinion were approved, and even if the opinion of the non-party 4 professor was found to be unlawful to participate in the above resolution, it is obvious that at least six members should be subject to heavy disciplinary action of dismissal of at least seven members out of the total number of seven members of the disciplinary committee. Thus, it is clear that the above procedure's illegality affected the above disciplinary resolution, and therefore, it cannot be said that the dismissal disposition of this case, which was conducted by the above disciplinary resolution, was invalid.

(6) Meanwhile, according to the above facts, the list of disciplinary committee members is not stipulated in the articles of incorporation or laws and regulations of the defendant corporation, and if the plaintiff, who is the disciplinary committee at the time of the resolution of dismissal, knows who is a disciplinary committee member in order to exercise his/her right to challenge (at the time of the resolution of dismissal of the defendant corporation, even though there was no provision on the challenge of the committee members, this should be recognized in light of general legal principles as to disciplinary action), it can be immediately known that if he/she voluntarily attends the disciplinary committee, he/she is the disciplinary committee, and it cannot be said that the disciplinary committee has a duty to disclose the list of disciplinary committee members, and it cannot be said that the disciplinary committee has interfered with the plaintiff from exercising his/her right to request a challenge without disclosing the list of disciplinary committee members. Thus,

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the resolution of this case is invalid as it is unlawful without disclosing the list of members is without merit.

(7) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant dismissal disposition is null and void due to its procedural error is all without merit.

(d)be further to the substantive aspect of the disciplinary action.

(1) First, in the lawsuit of this case disputing the validity of a disciplinary action against a private school teacher, the subject of the judgment on the illegality of the disciplinary action is a fact that the disciplinary committee made it a cause for disciplinary action, and any other reason (not a cause for disciplinary action) in the course of the lawsuit is not a cause for disciplinary action. Thus, as seen earlier, the facts that the disciplinary committee made it a cause for disciplinary action are based on materials I, II (Evidence Nos. 5 and 6) and Review Decision (Evidence No. 8).

In full view of the above evidence, Eul evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 9, the following facts can be acknowledged, and there is no counter-proof without reliance on the fact that there is an objection against the witness of the court below which is contrary to the above recognition, the witness of the court below, and some testimony of Lee Man-ri, which are contrary

(A) On May 19, 1971, the Plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer at the newspaper and broadcasting department at the university of Korea-U.S. and was promoted to professors on August 31, 1979 through an associate professor and associate professor.

(B) From the end of December 1986, the Plaintiff moved to a receiving institute through several incentives, and the policy science graduate school is a non-affiliated graduate school, and the launch of the graduate school is a profit-making act that drops behind the four-class university. Since the operating rules and operating policies of the graduate school have been formulated and implemented autonomously by Nonparty 4 professors, the Plaintiff’s “human claim” was inevitable for professors to be called “human claim” due to the selection criteria which is unreasonable, and thus, the professors of the university and the above graduate school criticizes professors of the university and the above graduate school.

(C) On October of the same year, the Plaintiff prepared a statement of reasons why Nonparty 4 professor, who was the head of the relevant university around December 1986, and submitted it to the school authority by preparing a false report on several professors as a confidential document, and reported it to the president and the principal of the school affairs as a confidential document. The Plaintiff slandered Nonparty 4 by preparing and distributing a public letter or printed article that it is inferred that it was reported to other agencies.

(D) On April 1, 1987, at the newspaper and broadcasting faculty meeting of the same month as of April 8, 1987, the Plaintiff resolved to add the opportunity to apply for a doctoral degree test only once, but the Plaintiff criticizes the decision of the above faculty meeting on the ground that the Plaintiff left the meeting against the above decision through inducement on the 18th of the same month, and criticizes the Plaintiff that the above decision was a close attachment with the system press, and slanders the Plaintiff received and distributed the money of the system press, and calls the president to recover the honor of the professor and the professor of other universities from the newspaper and broadcasting department of the newspaper and the professor of the Korea University.

(마) 원고는 1989.3.3. 이후 수차례에 걸쳐 소외 8 총장에 대하여 공금 착복 및 방조 등에 책임이 있고, 또 "고려대학교를 쑥밭으로 만든 파괴범", "자유, 정의, 진리의 전당에 5공비리의 뿌리를 내린 사람", "철저히 나쁜 것을 모아 내 것으로 만드는 기술이 뛰어난 교수", "고려대학교를 국제 망신시킨 교수", "당신이 갈 곳은 운이 좋으면 집이요, 운이 나쁘면 감옥이다"라면서 소외 8 총장의 당선은 무효라는 내용의 유인물을 제작, 배포하여 위 총장을 비방하였다.

(F) On July 22, 1986, the Plaintiff: (a) sent a telephone to each press organization; and (b) announced the 4th session of the Assembly at the place where the reporters were gathered, which read “the scambling and the scambling of the scambling” rather than the expression “the scambling and the scambling of the scambling; (c) thereby, an article under the title “the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of each newspaper; and (d) upon finding cultural broadcasts on the 29th of the same month, there was a fact that the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of the scam.

(G) On December 21, 1987, the Plaintiff: (a) spreads false information about the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government's occupied agricultural case in relation to the presidential election ballot counting; (b) was suspected of spreading a will by spreading false information in the manner that it was the site of murder, such as the tearlutan and decentralization; and (c) made an intervention as a third party in labor-management issues on February 4, 1989, and sent the U.S.Moroto Korea Co., Ltd. with an open letter 26, stating that “the company's authorized terrorist group is a company's approved terrorist group; and (d) unilaterally hear several horses of the labor union members of the above company and considered the contents of the above company as a terrorist group as the contents of the said company as a terrorist group, and received a strong letter of criticism from the above company that the university did not have any wife.

(h) On March 4, 1989, the Plaintiff was a professor who had an excessive demonstration of students with respect to the election of the president of Korea University, and was likely to be likely to cause students, and rather, in concert with the student’s demonstration, the Plaintiff took a part in the demonstration, carried out a shoulder with his/her students, and carried out physical fighting with his/her faculty members, and the contents of the demonstration were published in each newspaper.

(i) In relation to the general examination of a graduate school newspaper and a master's degree course in 1987, the Plaintiff pointed out the problems, such as the inappropriate of the examination on April 17, 1987, and unreasonable evaluation results, and filed a petition with the school authorities collectively, thereby causing the question related to the above examination.

(j) The plaintiff failed to submit a thesis necessary for promotion in 1979, and later promoted to the next time due to the failure to be promoted from February 28, 1979. The plaintiff submitted a research thesis plan for " what is T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T. H.T.T.T.T.T.T. H.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T. H.T

(2) Article 74 of the Education Act provides that "A teacher shall always endeavor to improve the character and quality of a teacher, and to improve his/her personality and quality, and to maintain the principles and methods of academic support and education so that he/she can serve in national education." In particular, a professor requires more advanced dignity to other professionals. According to the above acknowledged facts, the Plaintiff's dismissal of the Plaintiff as a professor based on the following facts: (a) through (b) without accurate confirmation as to the facts; (b) the character of a false person or an exaggerated person; and (c) the character of a professor by spreading the false or exaggerated contents to many people; and (d) the personal character of the professor or the president and the faculty of the University or his/her faculty members, and thus, the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Plaintiff as a professor of the Private School Act is evident at the time of his/her dismissal of the Plaintiff as a professor.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not commit any misconduct which was caused by the reason of the disciplinary action is without merit.

(3) Furthermore, the disciplinary action against a teacher in a public or private school is imposed to ensure the teacher’s duty as a teacher by taking care of discipline when the teacher in question is in flight. Thus, the disciplinary action is imposed to the disciplinary authority's discretion when the disciplinary action is imposed. However, the disciplinary action is illegal only when it is acknowledged that the disciplinary authority's exercise of disciplinary authority has considerably lost validity under the social norms and has escaped from or abused the discretion of the person with authority to take disciplinary action. Thus, the disciplinary action against the plaintiff's abuse of the authority to take care of the plaintiff's grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff is not appropriate, since it is not appropriate for the plaintiff to take into account the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff's abuse of the authority to take care of social norms, such as the circumstances and frequency of the misconduct in this case as mentioned above committed by the plaintiff, the injury of reputation and mental suffering of the teacher in a public or private school, and the plaintiff's abuse of the authority to take care of the plaintiff's disciplinary action against the plaintiff.

(4) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff was null and void is without merit, on the ground that the pertinent dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff had justifiable grounds.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of the dismissal disposition against the plaintiff, which was made by the president of Korea National University under the defendant's control, shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff.

Judges Lee Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)