A. Whether he/she is appointed as a conditional teacher in cases where he/she is appointed as a temporary teacher on condition that he/she works for three years at the time of enforcement of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 190) (affirmative)

B. Whether the term of appointment of a temporary teacher under Article 32 of the Public Educational Officials Act is null and void on the ground that the above "A" did not meet the requirements for appointment of a temporary teacher at the time of appointment (negative)

A. In a case where a temporary teacher is appointed under the name of a temporary teacher on condition of his/her service for three years at the time of enforcement of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 190), considering that the above Act only provides for conditional teachers, and does not provide for temporary teachers, he/she shall be appointed under the condition of his/her service for three years, regardless of his/her name. Such conditional teachers shall be the status guarantee under Article 56 of the above Act only to the extent of the condition. Even if he/she is qualified as a teacher and has worked the same as regular teachers after being appointed as a teacher, his/her legal status shall be the same as they are appointed as conditional teachers.

B. Even though the above "A" did not meet the requirements for the appointment of temporary teachers under Article 32 of the Public Educational Officials Act at the time of appointment, the condition that the employment period of the above employment contract is set cannot be said to be immediately invalidated by the Private School Act, such as the Guarantee of Teachers' Status.

A. Article 56 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4548, Feb. 14, 1989) (Law No. 1989, Apr. 8, 1991) (Law No. 1991, 1589) (Gong1589, May 14, 1991)

Lee Jong-soo Attorney Lee Jae-soo

School juristic persons: Acheon Private Teaching Institutes

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na20017 delivered on October 10, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 56 (1) of the Private School Act (amended by Act No. 426 of Apr. 7, 190) provides that "private school teachers shall not be subject to any unfavorable measure against their will unless a disciplinary measure is imposed, or there is any reason prescribed by this Act: Provided, That this shall not apply to those who have closed or been placed in a department by opening or closing classes, or who have been appointed conditionally." Thus, the main provision of the above Article provides that the provision shall not apply to conditional appointed teachers. Accordingly, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendant appointed the plaintiff as temporary teachers of the above commercial high school established and operated by the defendant for three years and appointed the plaintiff as temporary teachers of the above commercial high school for the said three-year period, and the plaintiff was also dismissed for the reason that the above qualification was terminated on August 26, 1989, and the defendant, even though he was aware that his appointment was terminated on condition of his employment for three years, he would be appointed as regular teachers for the above three-year period. The defendant did not accept the above provision of the plaintiff 1 or 2.

In addition, even if the defendant did not meet the requirements for temporary teachers under Article 32 of the Public Educational Officials Act at the time of the appointment of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the terms of employment under the above employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant can be immediately invalidated by the provisions of the Private School Act, etc. concerning the guarantee of the status of the teachers in this case where the conditions of employment under the above employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant were not provided for the requirements for temporary teachers under the Private School Act at the time of the appointment of the plaintiff, and it cannot be said that the terms of employment under the above employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant can be immediately invalidated by the provisions of the Private School Act, etc. In addition, since the plaintiff was accepted and appointed under the above conditions, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff was appointed without the fixed term of employment because he was aware that he would be appointed under the condition of employment for the three-year service period.In addition, the Supreme Court precedents of the lawsuit are relevant to the case where the plaintiff was appointed without the fixed term of employment of the teacher.

Therefore, unlike the opinion, the plaintiff's argument on the ground of appeal is not acceptable, on the premise that the plaintiff is in a position to guarantee the status under Article 56 of the Private School Act equivalent to the teacher under the Private School Act.

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.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)