In a case where a reason under Article 54-3 (1) 1 of the Private School Act arises to a person who serves as the head of a school, whether the head of the school is retired ipso facto from office (negative)

Article 54-3 (1) 1 of the Private School Act provides that "no person for whom five years have not passed since the approval of taking office was revoked under Article 20-2 of the Private School Act, shall be appointed to the head of a school." Article 57 of the Private School Act provides that "Where a teacher of a private school falls under Article 54-3 (1) 4 of the Private School Act, and Article 54-3 (1) 1 of the Private School Act provides that "the case where a teacher of a private school falls under Article 54-3 (1) 1 of the Private School Act shall be excluded from office." Where the principal of a school commits an act that constitutes a ground for cancellation of approval of taking office by a school juristic person, and that act falls under any of subparagraphs of Article 54-2 (1) of the Private School Act, the competent agency may request the person having authority to appoint the principal to dismiss the principal, and where the act of the principal of a school falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 58 (1) or each subparagraph of

Meanwhile, administrative laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the disposition of taking office, must be strictly construed and applied, and even if the teleological interpretation that takes into account legislative intent and purpose, etc. does not entirely exclude, such interpretation does not deviate from the ordinary meaning of the language and text. However, if the approval of taking office is revoked pursuant to the provisions of Article 20-2 of the Private School Act, even if it is revealed that the approval of taking office was erroneous, it does not affect the validity of ipso facto retirement, and it is practically impossible to remedy the rights of the person employed as the principal.

Article 54-3(1)1 of the Private School Act and the form and content of the relevant provisions, the principle of interpretation of administrative laws and regulations, the general use of the term “election,” and the term of “election,” under Article 31(6) of the Constitution, and Article 56(1) of the Private School Act also provide that the status of a teacher shall be specially guaranteed pursuant to Article 31(6) of the Constitution, and that it is confirmed under Article 56(1) of the Private School Act, it is merely interpreted that Article 54-3(1)1 of the Private School Act provides for reasons that cannot be newly appointed as the head of a school, and it cannot be deemed that a person who is already employed as the head

Article 31(6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 20-2, 54-3(1)1, and 56(1) of the Private School Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Yongsan-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Appeals Review Committee for Teachers

The Hongpy Institute of Education (Attorney Kang Jong-ok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu40964 decided November 16, 2016

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant’s Intervenor. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant’s Intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 54-3 (1) 1 of the Private School Act provides that "no person for whom five years have not passed since the approval of taking office was revoked under Article 20-2 of the Private School Act shall be appointed to the head of a school." Article 57 of the Private School Act provides that a teacher of a private school falls under Article 54-3 (1) 4 of the Private School Act shall be retired from office, and Article 54-3 (1) 1 of the Private School Act provides that the case where the teacher of a private school falls under Article 54-3 (1) 1 of the Private School Act shall be excluded from office. Where the principal of a school commits an act falling under the grounds for cancellation of the approval of taking office, and that act falls under each subparagraph of Article 54-2 (1) of the Private School Act, competent authorities may request the person having appointment authority to dismiss the head of the school, and where the act of the head of a school falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 58 (1) or each subparagraph of Article 61 (1)

Meanwhile, administrative laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the disposition of taking office, must be strictly construed and applied, and even if the teleological interpretation that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose, etc. does not entirely exclude, such interpretation does not deviate from the ordinary meaning of the language and text. However, if the approval of taking office is revoked pursuant to Article 20-2 of the Private School Act for a person working as the principal, if it is interpreted that he/she retired from office in the principal of a school, the validity of his/her ipso facto retirement is not affected even if it is revealed that there was a mistake in the disposition of taking office,

Article 54-3 (1) 1 of the Private School Act and the form and content of the relevant provisions, the principle of interpretation of administrative laws and regulations, the general use of the term “election,” and the term of “election,” under Article 31 (6) of the Constitution, and Article 56 (1) of the Private School Act provide that the status of a teacher shall be specifically guaranteed pursuant to Article 31 (6) of the Constitution and confirmed it, and Article 54-3 (1) 1 of the Private School Act can only be construed as a provision for reasons that cannot be newly appointed as the head of a school, and it cannot be deemed that a person who is already employed as the head of a school has such reasons.

2. In light of the above legal principles and records, even if the Minister of Education revoked the plaintiffs' approval of taking office against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have lost their school principal status as a matter of course under Article 54-3 (1) 1 of the Private School Act merely because the plaintiffs such circumstance alone, and the disposition in this case was based on the premise that the plaintiffs lose their school principal status as a matter of course. Therefore, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 54-3 (1) 1 of the Private School Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to invoke the instant case, since they differ from the instant case.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant, and the costs of appeal against the intervention are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)