Whether it can be deemed as a teacher subject to the former Private School Teachers’ Pension Act in case where a teacher has been appointed to a private school and worked for such private school but fails to report the appointment under Article 54 of the former Private School Act (negative)

Article 2 (1) 1 of the former Private School Teachers' Pension Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 190) provides that "A teacher subject to the former Private School Teachers' Pension Act shall be a teacher who has obtained approval from a supervisory authority or reported to a supervisory authority as to his appointment under Article 53 or 54 of the Private School Act." Article 54 (2) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 1990) provides that "When a person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss teachers of various levels of schools appoints or dismisses a teacher, he/she shall report it to a supervisory authority without delay." Thus, even if a teacher subject to the appointment and dismissal report has been appointed to a private school, unless the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss him/her files a report on appointment to a supervisory authority, it shall not be deemed a teacher subject to the former Private School Teachers' Pension Act.

Article 2(1)1 of the former Private School Teachers’ Pension Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of April 7, 1990); Article 54(2) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of April 7, 1990)

Plaintiff (Attorney Ha-bong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Korea Teachers Pension Foundation (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Shin-affiliated, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na3190 delivered on November 14, 2002

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 2(1)1 of the former Private School Teachers’ Pension Act (amended by Act No. 4226, Apr. 7, 1990; hereinafter the same) provides that “A teacher subject to the former Private School Teachers’ Pension Act” shall be a teacher who has obtained approval from a supervisory authority or is reported to a supervisory authority under Article 53 or 54 of the Private School Act. Article 54(2) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226, Apr. 7, 1990; hereinafter the same) provides that “When a person who is authorized to appoint or dismiss teachers of various levels of schools appoints or dismisses teachers, he/she shall report to a supervisory authority without delay.” Thus, even if a teacher subject to a report on appointment or dismissal has actually been appointed and worked for a private school, unless the person who is authorized to appoint or dismiss the teacher is reported to a supervisory authority, it shall not be deemed a teacher subject to the former Private School Teachers’ Pension Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant calculated the period of service under the former Private School Pension Act from March 1, 1990, and the president of ○ University from March 1, 1989 to February 28, 1990, including the fact that the plaintiff was appointed and worked as full-time assistant, teaching, etc. from March 1, 1990. The president of ○ University, who is the person with authority to appoint and dismiss the plaintiff, reported the appointment of the plaintiff to the Minister for literature and delivery who is the supervisory authority at the time of the appointment and appointment, and the president of ○ University was appointed on March 1, 1990 except the above full-time assistant working period. Accordingly, the defendant calculated the period of service against the plaintiff from March 1, 1990, and the president of ○ University from ○ University on December 27, 200 to the president of the Korean Private School Education Council entrusted with the duties of receiving the report of appointment and dismissal of the teacher from the Minister of Education and Human.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to teachers subject to the former Private School Act and the former Private School Teachers' Pension Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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 on the bench.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)