Where disciplinary action against a teacher of a private school is taken according to the procedures prescribed by the Private School Act and the articles of incorporation of an incorporated foundation, whether the disciplinary action against a teacher of a private school can be held liable for tort on the ground that he/she is found to deviate from discretion

The Private School Act provides for the grounds for disciplinary action against a private school teacher, the type of disciplinary action, the organization and organization of the disciplinary committee, and the procedures for deliberation, thereby guaranteeing that disciplinary action against a private school teacher is conducted in an appropriate and fair manner in accordance with legitimate procedures. Thus, if disciplinary action against a private school teacher is conducted by conducting necessary fact-finding according to the procedures stipulated in the Private School Act and the articles of incorporation of the incorporated foundation, requiring a person to be disciplined to attend and make a statement while taking into account the behavior, performance, public service, and situation of the person to be disciplined to be disciplined to voluntarily determine the disciplinary committee members, even if disciplinary action is found to have been taken as a result of deviation from discretion, it is merely an erroneous interpretation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the seriousness of disciplinary action by a non-legal expert. Thus, in such a case, it cannot be said that

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 61 of the Private School Act, Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da43586 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3061) 93Da11463 delivered on December 21, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 488) 91Da36192 delivered on December 24, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 494)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Busan High Court Decision 200Do1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na32691 delivered on March 16, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s claim for damages compensation for tort on the ground that it is difficult to acknowledge that the lower court’s judgment (91Na30424, Jan. 29, 1992) was affirmed on the ground that, on Apr. 1, 1986, the Plaintiff was an incorporated foundation established on Dec. 12, 1989 in order to separately take over and operate only the above international university establishment and operation of the said international university, and that, on the ground that, “the teaching staff working at an international university shall be deemed to have been appointed pursuant to this articles of association at the time of the enforcement of this articles of association, and the term of employment of the teaching staff shall be the current term of employment,” and that the Plaintiff succeeded to the employment relationship of the teaching staff of the said international university from the above sexual private teaching institute on May 1, 1989.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not mention the Plaintiff’s assertion on the succession of liability for damages from the first instance court to the lower court; (b) so, the lower court should be deemed to have led to the confession of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant succeeded to the liability for damages from the sexual institute; (c) however, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the constructive confession and the succession of liability for damages, and by determining that there was no evidence to acknowledge

However, the occurrence of liability for damages and the succession thereof are all the requirements for claiming damages against the defendant. Since there is no finding of the fact of succession to the liability for damages that the defendant did not establish the defendant who denied the occurrence of the liability to compensate for damages that should be judged objectively first, it shall be deemed that the defendant contests the above fact of succession in accordance with the purport of the oral argument. In addition, according to the records, the plaintiff asserted the succession to the liability for damages in accordance with Article 2 of the Addenda of the above articles of association, and the defendant does not dispute the existence of Article 2 of the Addenda of the above articles of association, the confession is established as to the existence of Article 2 of the Addenda of the above articles of association. However, the issue of whether the above articles of association can be viewed as the succession of the obligation by the above articles of association cannot be the subject of confession as a matter of interpretation of the articles of association, and the issue of whether the above articles of association can automatically succeed to the employment relationship of teachers and staff cannot be seen as the defendant succeeded to the liability for damages due to tort from the above sexual private teaching institute.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The Private School Act provides for the grounds for disciplinary action against a private school teacher, the type of disciplinary action, the organization and organization of the disciplinary committee, and the procedures for deliberation, thereby guaranteeing that disciplinary action against a private school teacher is conducted in an appropriate and fair manner in accordance with legitimate procedures. Thus, if disciplinary action against a private school teacher is conducted by conducting necessary fact-finding according to the procedures stipulated in the Private School Act and the articles of incorporation of the incorporated foundation, requiring a person to be disciplined to attend and make a statement while taking into account the behavior, performance, public service, and situation of the person to be disciplined to be disciplined to voluntarily determine the disciplinary committee members, even if disciplinary action is found to have been taken as a result of deviation from discretion, it is merely an erroneous interpretation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as to the seriousness of disciplinary action by a non-legal expert. In such a case, it cannot be said that the

In light of the records, the plaintiff was appointed as an international assistant professor at the above 1986.4.1, but he received a letter of notification from the above 196. The court below's dismissal of the plaintiff's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's.

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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)