Choi Yong-ho (Attorney Yoon Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee of the Ministry of Education

Daejeon Institute of Research and Development of School Foundation (Defendant and Defendant Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor, Counsel for the defendant’s defendant’s appellant-appellee)

The decision of retrial made by the defendant on September 4, 1992 between the plaintiff and the defendant joining the defendant on September 4, 1992 is revoked.

The supplementary part of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and the remainder by the Defendant respectively.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

At the time of March 1, 1990, the plaintiff was transferred to the Teachers' Disciplinary Committee of Giwon University as of March 1, 1992 and was dismissed on July 7, 1992 by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 9 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status, but the defendant dismissed the plaintiff's request for retrial on September 4, 1992 by the defendant pursuant to Article 9 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status as of July 1, 1992, on the ground that the plaintiff was reappointed on March 1, 1991, due to the reason that the plaintiff was involved in illegal incidents at the time of entering the Seoul University Music University as of March 1, 1991 and damaged his/her dignity as a teacher.

2. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful.

First, the dismissal disposition of this case against the plaintiff is erroneous because the composition of the above teachers' disciplinary committee against the plaintiff violates the provisions of Article 60 (3) of the former Articles of Incorporation of the defendant joining the defendant (amended by May 23, 1992; hereinafter the same shall apply). Second, the disciplinary resolution method and voting method of the above teachers' disciplinary committee are unlawful. Third, the dismissal disposition against the plaintiff is too heavy in light of the grounds for the disciplinary action, and the above dismissal disposition against the plaintiff should be revoked. Thus, the defendant's retrial decision of this case is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's first argument is examined.

Article 60 (3) of the former Articles of Incorporation (amended by May 23, 1992) of the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Articles of Incorporation (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13588, May 23, 1992) provides that “The cases that were pending in the teachers’ disciplinary committee at the time of the enforcement of its articles of incorporation shall be governed by the previous provisions,” and Article 60 (3) of the former Articles of Incorporation (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 19992) of the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s 6th anniversary of the fact that the Plaintiff was referred to the above teachers’ disciplinary committee and dismissed on June 8, 1992 shall be responsible for the management of the university teachers’ evidence No. 3, 4, 5, 12, 14, and 16 shall be the whole purport of the pleading. The Defendant’s Intervenor’s 6th of the said teachers’ disciplinary committee shall be the head of the university who was under the control of the university teachers’ committee.”

However, the Defendant’s Intervenor asserts that the provision of Article 60(3) of the above former Articles of Incorporation is null and void against Article 62(2) of the Private School Act as amended on April 7, 1990, and that the above teachers’ disciplinary committee organized pursuant to the above amended provisions of the Private School Act does not have any defect in its composition. Thus, unless it violates the provisions of the amended Private School Act, it shall be null and void if the provisions of the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Articles of Incorporation are inconsistent with the provisions of the amended Private School Act, but unless it violates the provisions of the amended Private School Act, it shall be deemed null and void until it obtains authorization due to a change in the prescribed procedure. Therefore, it is considered whether the Defendant’s Intervenor

Article 62 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 190) and Article 24-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13057 of Jul. 19, 190) provide that the head of a school among the members of the university teachers' disciplinary committee in charge of disciplinary action against the college educational institutions shall be appointed, and accordingly, the defendant intervenor's articles of incorporation also provided for the purport as to the composition of the teachers' disciplinary committee as above. Article 62 (2) of the former Private School Act promulgated by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 1990 provides that "the teachers' disciplinary committee shall be composed of not less than five and not more than nine members, and it shall not be more than half of the members of the school or the directors of the school juristic person in question shall not be more than half of the members of the school, and it shall not be more than 60 of the amended Private School Act.

Therefore, the above disciplinary committee's disciplinary action against the plaintiff is defective in its composition against Article 60 (3) of the above previous articles of association (Article 60 (3) of the above previous articles of association, which was amended on May 23, 1992, pursuant to Article 62 (2) of the previous articles of association, but was amended on May 23, 1992, which was prior to the resolution of the disciplinary action of this case, it shall be governed by the previous provisions of the previous articles of association, and the plaintiff was referred to the teachers' disciplinary committee on March 10, 192. Thus, the above provisions of the previous articles of association shall apply to disciplinary action against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion that there is any defect in the composition of the above teachers' disciplinary committee composed of the provisions of the amended Private School Act, which have voting rights to the amendment of articles of association, cannot be said to be sufficient unless the amendment of the articles of association was actually made.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's dismissal disposition against the plaintiff of this case against the defendant's intervenor was defective in the disciplinary procedure, and the defendant's dismissal decision, which reported differently, should be revoked. Thus, the defendant's dismissal decision of this case seeking revocation of the decision of this case's retrial is unlawful. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Kim Jop (Presiding Judge) Kim Yong-ho