[1] Whether the head of a school may institute an administrative litigation against a decision made by the Appeal Commission for Teachers (affirmative)

[2] In a case where the president of a private university delegated his/her authority for appointment as a faculty member of a university and notified a full-time lecturer A of his/her temporary dismissal on the ground of the expiration of the period of reappointment and the appeals review committee rendered a decision revoking the disposition of rejection for reappointment, the case holding that the president of a university has the ability to file an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the

[1] In accordance with Article 10(3) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status, Article 10(2) of the Special Act on the Relief of Persons Disqualified for Fixed-Term Appointment System for University Faculty Members, Article 53-2(1) and (2) of the Private School Act, and Article 10(3) of the former Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status (amended by Act No. 8414 of May 11, 2007) which provides that only the original teachers may file an administrative lawsuit against a decision of the Appeal Commission for Teachers, it is reasonable to include not only a school juristic person and private school manager, but also the head of a school who is the respondent in the appeal examination, etc., who is also the principal of a school with the authority delegated by the principal of the school juristic person, as well as an independent decision of the Appeal Commission for Teachers' Status in accordance with Article 10(3) of the former Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status (amended by Act No. 8414 of Feb. 23, 2006).

[2] In a case where the president of a private university delegated his/her authority for appointment as a teacher of a university and notified the full-time lecturer A of his/her suspension from office on the ground of the expiration of the period of reappointment, and where Gap filed a claim for revocation of the disposition of rejection of reappointment with the president as the respondent to revoke the disposition of rejection of reappointment, the case holding that the president of a university has the ability to file an administrative lawsuit claiming revocation of the disposition of rejection of reappointment against

[1] Article 10(3) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status; Article 10(2) of the Special Act on the Relief of Persons Disqualified for the Appointment System for University Faculty Members; Article 53-2(1) and (2) of the Private School Act / [2] Article 10(3) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status; Article 10(2) of the Special Act on the Relief of Persons Disqualified for the Appointment System for University Faculty Members; Article 53-2(1) and (2) of the Private School Act

[1] Constitutional Court en banc Order 2005HunGa7, 2005HunMa1163 decided Feb. 23, 2006 (HunGong113, 277)

Aju University President (Law Firm Nai, Attorneys Lee Li-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Special Committee on the Examination of Teachers' Petitions (Law Firm Hongap, Attorney Kim Young-ok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu24878 decided May 20, 2008

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to Article 10(3) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), a party, including a teacher, an educational foundation or an operator of a private school under Article 2 of the Private School Act, may file a lawsuit as prescribed by the Administrative Litigation Act within 90 days from the date on which he/she receives a notice of decision, as to the decision of the Appeal Committee for Teachers (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee"), and Article 10(2) of the Special Act on the Relief of Persons Deserting the Appointment of Fixed-Term Faculty Members (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act for Remedy"), Article 10(3) of the Act on the Status of Teachers shall apply mutatis mutandis to the decision of the Appeal Committee for Teachers. Meanwhile, according to Article 53-2(1) and (2) of the Private School Act, teachers of each school at each level shall be appointed and dismissed by the relevant school foundation or operator of the relevant private school, but the right to appoint and dismiss the college staff of a college educational

According to Article 10(3) of the former Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status (amended by Act No. 8414 of May 11, 2007), where only the content of the above provisions and the original teachers can file an administrative litigation against a decision of the Committee, the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2005Hun-Ga7, 2005Hun-Ma1163, Feb. 23, 2006) is revised as above so that not only school juristic persons and private school managers but also the head of the school who is requested to file an administrative litigation may file an administrative litigation against a decision of the Committee (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2005Hun-Ga7, 2005Hun-Ma1163, Feb. 23, 2006). In addition, considering the fact that the school juristic person can be identified as one activity unit, it shall be deemed that not only the teachers specified in Article 10(3) of the Teachers' Status Act, and the principal of the school examination.

2. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff, as the president of the Aju University, delegated the authority for appointment of teachers of the Aju University with the authority to appoint the teachers of the Aju University and notified the defendant's assistant intervenor of his dismissal on the grounds of the expiration of the re-employment period. After the enforcement of the Special Remedies Act, the defendant's assistant intervenor filed a claim for revocation of the disposition of rejection of reappointment with the plaintiff as the respondent, and then notified the plaintiff. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff is a party's ability to file an administrative suit against the defendant for revocation of the decision of this case and a party

On the contrary, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff had no capacity to seek the revocation of the instant decision-making disposition, and that there was no standing to be a party, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the party capacity and the standing to be a party, and the grounds for appeal

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)