(a) Whether a school juristic person having authority over disciplinary action against a decision made by the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee may institute an administrative litigation;

(b) Whether Article 10 (3) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status is unconstitutional;

(a) A teacher of a private school who is subject to a disciplinary action may request a reexamination to the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee established in the Ministry of Education pursuant to Article 9 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status, and a decision made by the Review Committee is made pursuant to Article 10 (2) and (3) of the same Act, only the teacher who has requested the reexamination to the Review Committee may file an administrative litigation, and the school juristic person,

B. The Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status established for the purpose of improving the teacher's status and promoting the development of education by improving the honorable treatment and strengthening the status guarantee of the teacher, shall allow the teacher subject to disciplinary action, etc. to file a request for a review with the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee established in the Ministry of Education as in the same manner as the national and public school teacher, and the decision of the Review Committee shall be binding on the person subject to the disposition, and Article 10 (3) of the same Act stipulates that only the teacher who filed a request for a review may file an administrative lawsuit against the decision of the Review Committee on Disciplinary Measures against the teacher shall have reasonable grounds (in fact, it seems that the decision of the Review Committee on Disciplinary Measures against the teacher will function as similar to the decision of an administrative appeal as in regard to the administrative disposition) and thus, it shall not be deemed null

(a)Article 10(3) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [general] and Article 12(a) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 10(2) and Article 9 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status; Article 11 and Article 27 of the Constitution;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney above-at-law of the same school foundation

Ministry of Education Disciplinary Review Committee (Attorney Full-time, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu12130 delivered on October 7, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to Article 9 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act"), a teacher of a private school subject to a disciplinary action may file a request for a review with the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Review Committee"), and Article 10 (2) of the Special Act provides that "the decision of the Review Committee shall bind the person having authority to take the disciplinary action," and Article 10 (3) of the same Act provides that "the teacher may file a lawsuit against the decision of the Review Committee as prescribed by the Administrative Litigation Act," so the decision of the Review Committee may only file an administrative lawsuit against the Review Committee, and the school juristic person, etc. subject to a disciplinary action, may not file an administrative lawsuit. Since the Special Act does not mention the person having authority to take the disciplinary action, the person having authority to take the disciplinary action may not be deemed to have filed administrative litigation pursuant to

In the same purport, the court below is just to dismiss the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff, who is the disposition-taking authority, on the ground that it was filed by a person who has no standing to sue, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to standing to sue as pointed out

2. Private school teachers are appointed and dismissed by school juristic persons or managers of private schools, and the relationship between private school teachers and school juristic persons is not considered as the power relationship under the public law. However, private school teachers are educational institutions in charge of the daily interest of national public education, and their establishment, operation, and appointment, dismissal, etc. are subject to guidance, supervision, support, and regulation by the State or local governments in accordance with the Education Act and the City School Act, and are qualified, service, dismissal, and guarantee of status, etc. of private school teachers, and are treated as equivalent to national and public school teachers. Meanwhile, the Special Act enacted for the purpose of improving the honorable treatment and treatment of school teachers and strengthening their status guarantee through strengthening their status guarantee shall allow the teachers subject to disciplinary action to file a request with the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee established in the Ministry of Education identical with national and public school teachers, and the decision of the Review Committee shall be binding on the person entitled to disposition, and the decision of the Review Committee provides that only the teacher who filed a request for review may file an administrative lawsuit against the decision of the Review Committee shall not be subject to a similar administrative disposition or decision.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the lawsuit.

3. 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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)