/ Whether the portion determined differently from the decision of the Appeal Committee for Teachers in an administrative litigation brought by a school juristic person, etc. against the revocation of a disposition rejecting reappointment by citing a request for review of an appeal by a teacher of a private school / Whether the decision of the Appeal Committee for Teachers is binding (negative)

Article 10 (2) and (3) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status; Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [General / Administrative Litigation Trial]

Supreme Court Decision 2012Du12297 Decided July 25, 2013 (Gong2013Ha, 1613)

School Foundation (Law Firm Rodd, Attorneys Kim Tae-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Teachers Appeals Review Committee (Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu14483 decided November 21, 2013

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The binding force of the decision of the Appeal Committee for Teachers (hereinafter referred to as the “Review Committee”) is limited to not only the matters included in the main text of the decision but also to determine and determine the facts constituting the premise thereof, i.e., the recognition of and determination on the specific grounds for illegality, such as the determination, that is, the revocation of the disposition rejecting reappointment by citing a request for review of an appeal by a private school teacher. Thus, when the decision of the Review Committee becomes final and conclusive by dismissing a request by the court for revocation of the decision of the Review Committee in the administrative litigation instituted by a school foundation, etc. (no administrative litigation is instituted or its objection is filed) and the decision of the Review Committee becomes final and conclusive, only the order of the decision of the Review Committee and the reasons constituting the premise thereof belong to the person who has disposition authority, such as the school foundation, etc., and even if the decision of the Review Committee was made differently

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, which partially admitted by the court below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's assistant intervenor (hereinafter "the intervenor") filed a request for review of appeal disputing the validity of the rejection of reappointment of this case: (a) the defendant did not comply with the prior notice procedure; (b) the defendant did not provide an opportunity to present opinions or opinions; and (3) the plaintiff's request for the rejection of reappointment of this case was defective; and (b) the plaintiff performed the procedure of notifying the plaintiff of the fact that the period of appointment expires four months prior to the expiration of the intervenor's term of appointment and the fact that the plaintiff can file an application for review; (c) the above defect in the prior notice procedure is not recognized; and (d) the defendant's rejection of reappointment of this case is revoked by recognizing the defect in the prior notice procedure in the refusal of reappointment of this case, and therefore, the court erred in the judgment of this case and corrected the decision of this case as to the plaintiff's request for rejection of reappointment of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's determination is based on the aforementioned legal principles, and there is no specific circumstance or ground to deem that the binding force of the review committee would not cause unfair results even if the review committee's decision is maintained. Therefore, the court below's decision to prevent unfair results from the binding force by correcting the error of the decision of the defendant is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the binding force of the review committee

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the intervenor. The remainder is assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)