(a) A teacher of a private school shall be guaranteed his status as a teacher of a national or public school;

B. The cause of a claim in a civil lawsuit involving a teacher of a private school’s disciplinary action shall be conducted only with the cause of the disciplinary action, and it shall not include the cause of solitary action (which is not a cause of disciplinary action) cited in the process of the

(a) A teacher of a private school shall be guaranteed his status as a teacher of a national or public school;

B. The cause of a claim in a civil lawsuit involving a teacher of a private school’s disciplinary action shall be conducted only with the cause of the disciplinary action, and it shall not include the cause of solitary action (which is not a cause of disciplinary action) cited in the process of the

Article 56 of the Private School Act; Article 61 of the Private School Act

Plaintiff

The East School Foundation of Education

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na2380 decided November 12, 1971, Seoul High Court Decision 70Na2380 decided November 12, 1971

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the appellant are examined.

Although the teachers of private schools are not the same as teachers of national and public schools in the form of status, the mission and the value of the teacher as a person in exclusive charge of the realization of the educational purpose as provided by Article 1 of the Education Act is not a public educational official.

In addition, the necessity of securing the autonomy of education and the necessity of defending the teachers' rights cannot be limited to the exclusive national and public schools, and the private schools having the character of public service should also be equally enjoyed in the same way in the special characteristics of education, so that the status of the teacher of private school should be given preferential treatment to the teacher of private school, and that the status of the teacher of private school should be guaranteed.

In this portion of the truth, the teacher of a private school is general with a public educational official. In conclusion, the substantial identity of both parties is the same as the qualifications of both parties, and the same spirit is specified equally in service. Furthermore, in the process of judicial relief of disciplinary action, both parties should be seen as having to change.

In a case where a teacher of a national or public school who is a public educational official brings an administrative action, there is no doubt that the cause of the claim should be limited to only the cause of the disciplinary action leading to the disciplinary action, and that the cause of the claim in a civil lawsuit disputing the disciplinary action by the teacher of a private school should be also made only by the cause of the disciplinary action. If it is deemed that the cause of the claim in the civil lawsuit includes the cause of the action in addition to the cause of the disciplinary action, the private school law forces the teachers to take disciplinary action and establish a new committee to punish the teachers, and it is dismissed without room for doubt. The purpose of the law in which the cause of the disciplinary action is statutory, which includes the fact that the private school teacher added the cause of the disciplinary action to a remote cause that does not constitute a cause of the disciplinary action, and it is not the reason that the private school teacher puts disadvantage to them.

Therefore, there is no reason to change the point of view of the cause of a claim in a dispute over a disciplinary action in accordance with the administrative litigation or civil procedure. In this case, the judgment of the Ministry of Health and Welfare is based on four grounds for disciplinary action, and it is clear that two facts pointed out by the judgment of the previous Supreme Court in the presence of the judgment of the previous Supreme Court in the room including the facts (1) (2) at the time of the judgment, and that the facts were the cause of the disciplinary action. However, in the case where the same does not dispute the disciplinary action in the disciplinary committee attached to the defendant, it is obvious that the above judgment of remand was the purport of judgment under the premise that the above facts pointed out in the judgment were the cause of the disciplinary action by the disciplinary committee, and that the original judgment was rejected all of the measures in the above judgment (which does not extend to the conclusion that the above two facts were excluded from the above two facts) or that there was no reason to believe that the judgment was unlawful, and it is not reasonable to reverse the judgment.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)