(a) Whether the employment contract is legitimate, where the school foundation appoints a foreign national differently from the regular professor for a fixed period of one year;

(b) Whether an implied reappointment contract has been concluded if a professor performs his/her duties for four months after the expiration of the term of appointment and pays his/her salary;

(c) Whether a university faculty member appointed for a specified period has the right to expect reappointment due to the expiration of the term of appointment;

(d) the legal nature of measures and notifications excluded from reappointment;

A. According to Article 52 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 190), and Article 31 of the Public Educational Officials Act, foreigners may be appointed from private schools as invited professors. In this case, the same term of employment shall not be specified and appointed as regular professors under Article 53-2 (2) of the former Private School Act. If a contract for such appointment is appointed for a fixed period of one year, unlike regular professors, according to the guidelines for delivery of sentences on employment of foreign professors as status with foreign nationality at the time, unlike regular professors, according to the status of foreigners with foreign nationality at that time, it is legitimate in light of its nature that it is not a contract for employment under private law.

B. It cannot be deemed that a school juristic person entered into a contract to be re-appointed implicitly solely on the ground that it had the school juristic person serve as a professor for four months after the expiration of the term of appointment, such as having paid a salary.

C. As a matter of course, the status of university professors appointed for a fixed period of time is terminated as a matter of course due to the expiration of their term of appointment. Under the Education Act, university professors, etc. are required to have high-level professional knowledge, teaching ability, and personality, and when the term of appointment expires, the appointment authority should decide whether to appoint a person whose term of appointment expires, taking into account such various circumstances. Thus, whether to appoint a person whose term of appointment expires belongs to discretionary action based on the decision of the appointment authority, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that university professors appointed for a fixed period of time have the right

(d) measures and notifications of exclusion from reappointment are merely to confirm and notify that they have retired ipso facto from office at the expiration of the term, not to bring about any legal effect between the teacher and the school juristic person.

(a) B. D. Articles 52 and 53-2(2)(a) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 190), Article 31 of the Educational Officials Act, Article 655 of the Civil Code

A. Supreme Court Decision 94Da15479 delivered on August 26, 1994. D. Supreme Court Decision 94Da12852 delivered on October 14, 1994. D. Supreme Court Decision 93Da5093 delivered on April 23, 1993. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu2622 delivered on June 9, 1987. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9640 delivered on June 27, 1989. Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2315 delivered on July 29, 1994.

Plaintiff 1, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na47580 delivered on October 8, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on March 2, 1981, the court below decided that the appointment of the plaintiff as an assistant professor at ○ University established and operated by the defendant as of March 1, 1984, was made for a term of three years from March 1, 1984 to four years, and was made an associate professor for five years on October 1, 1984, and that the appointment of the plaintiff as a professor at ○○ University as of September 1, 1989, when the term of office expires, the appointment of the foreigner as a professor shall not exceed one year, and the appointment of the plaintiff as a professor at ○○ University as of October 1, 1990, according to the guidelines for delivery of the letter to the effect that the appointment of the plaintiff as a professor at ○○ University as of March 1, 199, and the appointment of the plaintiff as a professor at ○○ University as of August 31, 199, based on the above provision of the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff 19.

According to Article 52 of the former Private School Act and Article 31 of the Public Educational Officials Act, foreigners may be appointed as visiting professors in private schools. In this case, the same period of employment shall not be fixed and appointed as regular professors pursuant to Article 53-2 (2) of the former Private School Act. Thus, the plaintiff is appointed for a fixed period of one year differently from regular professors in accordance with the guidelines for delivery of a letter on employment of foreign professors as status of foreigners with foreign nationality at the time. Such employment contract is lawful in light of its nature as it is not an employment contract under private law (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da15479 delivered on August 26, 1994). Thus, although it is inappropriate for the court below to set the premise that the defendant would grant the term of seven years in accordance with the above articles of association in the appointment of the plaintiff, the above one-year employment contract against the plaintiff is legitimate, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles of the former Private School Act and the pleading principle.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The defendant cannot be deemed to have concluded a contract for re-employment on the ground that he had the plaintiff perform his duties as a professor for a period of four months even after the expiration of the above term of appointment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da5093, Apr. 23, 1993). Thus, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to implied expression of intent, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in the violation of the principle

3. On the third ground for appeal

As a matter of course, the status of university professors appointed for a fixed period of time is terminated as a matter of course due to the expiration of their term of appointment, and the university professors under the Education Act require high-level professional knowledge, teaching ability, and personality, and the appointment authority at the expiration of the term of appointment should be able to determine re-employment, taking into account such various circumstances, whether or not to appoint a person whose term of appointment expires belongs to discretionary action based on the judgment of the appointment authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9640, Jun. 27, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2315, Jul. 27, 1993; 94Da12852, Oct. 14, 1994; 97Da1686, Jun. 9, 1987; 2006Da97986, Jun. 9, 207).

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)