Of the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff, the part of the claim for payment of wages is reversed, and this part of the case.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the claim for payment of wages

A. Based on the adopted evidence, the lower court recognized that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of “persons with at least three years’ experience as a pastor,” who are qualified for appointment of a new faculty member under the Personnel Management Regulations at the time of appointment as the Defendant’s new faculty member, based on the adopted evidence. On October 29, 2013, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s refusal of receipt of the Plaintiff’s labor provision as a professor of the new department since the notification was made on October 29, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff was disqualified as a professor of the new department.

B. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the records, Article 13(4) of the Personnel Management Regulations of the Defendant provides that “The faculty in charge of the subject of the new subject in the new subject education division and the senior subject education division shall, in principle, be a pastor who falls under Article 1(1), 2, and 3 of the same Act and has experience in the field of the new subject for at least three years.” In addition, the case where a teacher who fails to meet the above qualifications for appointment is appointed, there is no provision that does not exist

Meanwhile, Article 57 of the Private School Act provides that a teacher of a private school shall be retired ipso facto when he/she falls under any of the grounds for disqualification for appointment of a public educational official under any of the subparagraphs of Article 10-4 of the Public Educational Officials Act, and the above grounds for disqualification for appointment under the personnel regulations of the defendant do not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article

Therefore, even if the plaintiff who is appointed as a teacher by the defendant did not meet all or part of the qualification for appointment of teacher under the personnel regulations of the defendant, the personnel regulations or articles of association of the defendant.