[1] The nature of school regulations and the method of interpreting them

[2] The case holding that the revocation of the conferment of a master's degree on the ground that Gap university's master's master's degree thesis was plagiarism of another person's thesis, and thus, the revocation of the conferment of a degree was based on the determination of plagiarism illegally conducted in violation of the provisions of the Committee on the Promotion of Research in Gap University and the revocation of the conferment of a degree was invalid on the ground

[1] School regulations have the nature similar to laws and regulations in that they are applied as the basis of a trial, so the principle of statutory interpretation that, as far as possible, it shall be faithfully interpreted within the ordinary meaning of the language and text used in the law shall also apply to the interpretation of school regulations.

[2] The case holding that the above plagiarism determination was unlawful in violation of the provisions of the Committee on the Promotion of Research at Gap University since the Committee on the Promotion of plagiarism constituted a preliminary investigation committee at the time of the determination of plagiarism or did not provide opportunities to request reexamination on the ground that Eul's master's master's master's master's master's degree thesis was plagiarism of another person, and thus, the above plagiarism determination was not made illegally in violation of the regulations of the Committee on the Promotion of Research at Gap University, and the cancellation of conferment of degree is also illegal, and the above "where Gap university's school honor is damaged" as the ground for cancellation of conferment of degree is "where Gap university's master's master's master's degree thesis was damaged (or where the person who received the degree was awarded the degree)" was interpreted as "where Eul's master's master's master's degree thesis was damaged before the master's degree was acquired, and it cannot be deemed that Eul's master's master's master's master's master's degree thesis was "h."

[1] Article 6 of the Higher Education Act, Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act / [2] Articles 6 and 29 of the Higher Education Act, Articles 4 and 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, Article 2 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Nu398 delivered on July 27, 1982 (Gong1982, 830) Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1123 delivered on July 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 1243) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4737 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2420) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81035 Delivered on April 23, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 724)

Plaintiff (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Lee Lee-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

A school foundation (Law Firm Pyeong, Attorneys Hong-jin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

February 1, 2012

1. We affirm that the Defendant’s revocation of a master’s degree made on May 9, 201 by the Plaintiff is invalid.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Acquisition of a master's degree by the plaintiff

In 1977, the Plaintiff entered the master’s degree course at the Hanyang University Industrial Graduate School established and operated by the Defendant, and completed the above master’s degree course at December 1978, and submitted a master’s degree paper (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s master’s degree paper”). Around February 1979, the Plaintiff received engineering master’s degree from the Hanyang University Industrial Graduate School (hereinafter “technical graduate school”).

(b) Cancellation of master's degree at Hanyang University;

1) On March 26, 2011, the Plaintiff took office as the president of the ○ University. In relation to the operation of the ○ University, the Plaintiff conflicted with the organization “○ University Future Development Committee for the Non-Party 1 Educational Foundation.” In the process, the article “the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s degree thesis was reported to the press that “the Non-Party’s master’s master’s degree thesis was plagiarism,” and the said future development committee reported the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s degree thesis to the Hanyang University on April 201 (hereinafter “instant information”).

2) On April 29, 2011, the Research Promotion Committee of the Hanyang University held a committee to determine that “the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s degree thesis was plagiarismd by the Nonparty’s non-party’s master’s degree thesis at Lhee University management administration graduate school in around 1976” (hereinafter “instant plagiarism determination”); and the Non-Party’s master’s degree thesis at Lhee University management administration graduate school written by the Non-Party around 1976 (hereinafter “Non-Party’s thesis”).

3) On May 9, 2011, the Graduate School Committee of the Hanyang University determined that “the Plaintiff’s master’s degree thesis was plagiarism as a result of the deliberation by the Research Promotion Committee of the Hanyang University, and thus, the Engineering Graduate Committee, which received the result, determined that the pertinent thesis was plagiarism, and that “the Plaintiff’s master’s degree was revoked pursuant to Article 48 of the Graduate School Regulations,” and that the Hanyang University revoked the Plaintiff’s master’s degree conferment (hereinafter “instant revocation”).

(c) relevant provisions, such as the Regulations of the Research Promotion Committee of the Hanyang University;

/Rules of the Research Promotion Committee

The purpose of this Regulation is to prescribe matters concerning the establishment, operation, etc. of the Research Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) for the purpose of establishing research ethics and truth, preventing research misconduct in advance, and verifying fair and systematic truth at the time of research misconduct.

Article 2 (Scope of Application) This provision shall apply to all researchers and employees directly or indirectly related to research and development activities in the principal school.

Article 3 (Definitions)

(1) The term "act of research misconduct" (hereinafter referred to as "act of misconduct") means any act of forgery, alteration, indication of the author of a thesis, etc. conducted in a research proposal, research execution, report or publication of research outcomes, etc., and the following acts:

3. The term "collaboration" means the act of stealing intellectual outcomes, such as a thesis, patent, idea, etc. of another person, or research contents, results, etc. without legitimate approval or quotation;

(4) The term "preliminary investigation" means procedures to determine whether it is necessary to conduct an official investigation on suspicion of misconduct.

(5) The term "main investigation" means a procedure to verify whether a suspected act is true.

Article 10 (Preliminary Investigation)

(1) The Committee shall organize a preliminary investigation committee comprised of three persons within ten days from the date on which relevant information is received.

(3) The preliminary investigation committee shall report the results to the Committee within 30 days after commencement of the investigation, and the report on results shall include the following matters:

1. Details of the report and identity of the informant;

2. The suspicion of fraudulent acts which are the object of investigation and related research tasks;

3. Whether a full-scale investigation is conducted and the grounds for judgment;

4. Evidential materials;

5. Whether five years have elapsed from the date on which the information was reported starts;

Article 11 (Main Survey)

(1) Where it is deemed necessary to conduct a full-scale investigation by the preliminary investigation committee, the committee shall organize a full-scale investigation committee within 30 days after approval thereof.

Article 13 (Notification of Results) The Chairperson shall prepare in writing a decision of the Committee on the results of the investigation, and notify those to be polled and those who have provided information without delay.

Article 14 (Review) Where a person polled or informant is dissatisfied with a decision of the Committee, he/she may request in writing the Committee to review the decision, specifying the reasons therefor, within 30 days after receipt of notice of the decision.

Article 15 (Guarantee of Procedural Rights) An informant and a person to be polled shall guarantee equal opportunities to state their opinions, raise objections, and present arguments, and give prior notice of the relevant procedures.

Article 21 (Application Mutatis Mutandis) With respect to the verification of authenticity of research, the provisions not provided for in this Regulation shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Acts and regulations related to the feasibility of research by the State.

director Guidelines to secure research ethics (Ordinance No. 236 of the Ministry of Science and Technology, enacted February 8, 2007)

The purpose of this guideline is to present the basic principles and directions concerning roles and responsibilities necessary to prevent research misconduct and to ensure research ethics for institutions which promote, manage, or perform national research and development projects pursuant to Article 19-2 of the Regulations on the Management, etc. of National Research and Development Projects.

Article 2 (Scope of Application)

(1) These guidelines shall be guidelines for all research-related institutions performing national research and development projects in the fields of science and technology (hereinafter referred to as "research institute") and central administrative agencies and specialized institutions that support, manage and supervise such research-related institutions (hereinafter referred to as "research-related support

(2) Where any institution or organization that conducts national research and development projects in the field of cultural and social sciences or performs research and development activities, other than national research and development projects, intends to prepare self-regulation to secure research ethics and truth, this shall

Article 12 (Prescription for Verification of Truth)

(1) In principle, no unlawful act shall be treated even if it has been received for five years prior to the date of receipt of the information.

(2) Even if fraudulent acts prior to five years have been committed, those to be polled shall be treated where they are used in the subsequent planning of research, application for research expenses, conduct of research, report and announcement of research results, and where public welfare or safety occurs or are likely to occur, within five years after directly re-using the results thereof.

m. Graduate school regulations

Article 48 (Cancellation of Conferment of Degrees) Where any person who has received a degree from each graduate school and impairs school honor, the conferment thereof may be cancelled after a resolution is adopted by each graduate school operating committee.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) At the time of the instant determination of plagiarism, the Committee on Research Promotion at Yangyang University did not comply with the regulations of the Committee on Research Promotion at Yangyang University and guidelines to ensure research ethics as follows. Thus, the instant determination of plagiarism is null and void, and the revocation of the instant conferment of degrees is also null and void.

A) Although Article 12(1) of the Guidelines for Securing Research Ethics and Article 10 of the Regulations of the Research Promotion Committee of Hanyang University stipulate that no investigation is conducted with respect to fraudulent acts that had been conducted five years prior to the date of information, the Research Promotion Committee of Hanyang University investigated whether the Plaintiff’s master’s degree thesis was plagiarism, which was conducted five years prior to the date of information, around April 201.

B) Although Article 10 of the Regulations of the Research Promotion Committee of Hanyang University stipulates that a preliminary investigation committee is established, the determination of plagiarism of this case did not constitute a preliminary investigation committee or proceed with a preliminary investigation.

C) Articles 13 and 14 of the Regulations of the Research Promotion Committee of Hanyang University provide that those to be polleded shall be notified of the determination of the Committee, and that those to be polled may be requested for reexamination within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notification, but the chairperson of the Research Promotion Committee of Hanyang University did not notify the Plaintiff of the determination of plagiarism.

2) The Plaintiff’s act of plagiarism does not constitute “an act of impairing school honor” as referred to in Article 48 of the graduate school school regulations. Thus, the revocation of conferment of degrees in this case is determined in violation of school regulations.

3) The Plaintiff’s acquisition of a master’s degree was conducted by submitting the draft provided by guidance professors according to the proposal made by guidance professors at the time. Therefore, the issue was whether the Hanyang University, which provided a direct motive for plagiarism of the Plaintiff’s master’s degree thesis, came into question on May 9, 201 and cancelled the master’s degree violates the good faith principle and the good faith principle.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) The revocation of the conferment of degrees in this case is independently confirmed and decided by the Graduate School Committee of Hanyang University that the Plaintiff’s master’s degree thesis was plagiarism. It is irrelevant to the determination of plagiarism in this case by the Research Promotion Committee of Hanyangyang University. Therefore, even if any defect exists in the determination of plagiarism in this case, it is irrelevant to the illegality of revocation of the conferment

2) The Plaintiff’s master’s degree thesis itself constitutes “an act of impairing school honor” as stipulated in Article 48 of the graduate school regulations. In addition, the Plaintiff’s master’s degree acquisition is invalid as it was conducted without lawful submission and authorization due process in violation of the Higher Education Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof. The Plaintiff’s master’s degree revocation can be deemed as invalid from the beginning.

3) The Plaintiff could have anticipated the revocation of his master’s degree as a person who submitted a master’s degree thesis by plagiarism. Therefore, the revocation of the conferment of degree cannot be deemed as contrary to the good faith principle or the principle of trust.

3. Determination

A. Determination on the defect in the plagiarism decision of this case

1) Defect in the instant plagiarism determination

A) In full view of the purport of the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the Research Promotion Committee of the Hanyang University did not open a preliminary investigation committee and a full-scale investigation committee on the ground that "the plaintiff's master's master's master's degree thesis is obvious to have plagiarism," at the time of the determination of the instant plagiarism, and notified the plaintiff of the determination of plagiarism without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to state his opinion. The Research Promotion Committee of the Hanyangyang University did not notify the plaintiff of the determination of plagiarism on April 29, 201 (the plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit without knowing the accurate date of the determination of plagiarism and the revocation of the conferment of degree, but the date of the instant determination was specified by the defendant's submission of a written response, contrary to the fact that the plaintiff's master's master's master's degree thesis was submitted to the Hanyang University Industrial School on December 12, 1978.

B) First of all, the Plaintiff asserted that the Research Promotion Committee of the Hanyang University violated Article 12(1) of the Guidelines to secure research ethics by making the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s degree research paper that had been held five years prior to the date of receipt of the instant information. However, Article 12(1) of the Guidelines provides that “it shall not be dealt with even if it was received five years prior to the date of receipt of the instant report,” which provides that the Plaintiff may conduct an investigation into plagiarism five years prior to the date of receipt of the information by using the expression, and that the Plaintiff’s reasons for not processing the information on plagiarism five years prior to the date of receipt of the information can not be interpreted as “the purport that the evidence is not properly preserved or that it is difficult to conduct a fair investigation due to departure from the position of the relevant witness.” Furthermore, even if it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s degree and non-party’s research paper cannot be seen as having violated Article 12(1) of the Guidelines before the date of receipt of the information, it cannot be seen as having been completely identical to the Plaintiff’s plagiarism’s.

C) However, the determination of plagiarism of this case was made in violation of the provisions of Articles 10, 13, and 14 of the Regulations of the Research Promotion Committee, since the fact that the preliminary investigation committee was not organized or did not proceed with a preliminary investigation, and that the chairman of the Research Promotion Committee of Hanyang University did not notify the Plaintiff of the determination of plagiarism of this case and did not give the Plaintiff an opportunity to request re-deliberation, and thus, the determination of plagiarism of this case was made unlawful in violation of the above

2) Whether the plagiarism decision of this case was unlawful as to whether the revocation of conferment of degree of this case is irrelevant to the illegality

A) The Defendant asserts that the revocation of the conferment of degrees in this case is irrelevant to the determination of plagiarism by the Research Promotion Committee of Hanyang University, as it independently confirmed and decided that the Plaintiff’s master’s degree thesis was plagiarism. Thus, even if any defect exists in the determination of plagiarism in this case, it is irrelevant to the illegality of the revocation of the conferment of degrees in this case.

B) The Plaintiff’s assertion that “The Plaintiff’s master’s master’s degree was determined as plagiarism at the time of the revocation of the conferment of this case’s degree,” and “the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s degree was determined as the result of the deliberation by the Research Promotion Committee of Hanyang National University,” was confirmed to have been plagiarism, and each member of the graduate school committee, signed by each member of the graduate school committee (Article 48 of the graduate school regulations). The Plaintiff’s decision to cancel the conferment of degree was based on the instant decision to cancel the conferment of degree, and ② Article 2 of the Regulations of the Research Promotion Committee of Hanyang National University provides that “The Plaintiff’s master’s degree was applied to all researchers and employees directly or indirectly related to research and development activities in Hanyang National University” (as seen earlier), so the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s degree examination is also included in the scope of the above application. Therefore, considering that it is deemed necessary to determine whether the Plaintiff’s master’s master’s master’s degree was prepared by plagiarism, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this case is unlawful.

B. Determination on the assertion of defects in violation of school regulations

1) Whether there exists any defect in violation of school regulations

A) School regulations are applied as the basis of a judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Nu398, Jul. 27, 1982; 87Nu1123, Jul. 11, 1989; 91Nu4737, Jul. 14, 1992); therefore, they have the characteristics similar to laws and regulations in such a respect. Thus, the principle of statutory interpretation that the legal interpretation should be faithfully interpreted in the ordinary meaning of the language used in the law (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81035, Apr. 23, 2009) shall also apply to the interpretation of school regulations.

B) As to the instant case, Article 48 of the School Regulations of the Korea-U.S. Graduate School provides that “When a person who has received a degree from each graduate school has injured his school honor, the award may be cancelled after a resolution is passed by a graduate school operating committee of each graduate school (as mentioned above).” Here, the phrase “when a person who has received a degree has injured his school honor” is interpreted as “after having received the degree, when the person who has received the degree has damaged his school honor” is in accord with the ordinary meaning of the language and text.

C) The Plaintiff did not submit a master’s degree thesis, which was plagiarism by itself, by actively deceiving the examiners of the Hanyang University’s thesis including instruction professors, but rather by inviting instruction professors to submit a master’s degree thesis and obtain a master’s degree, so Article 48 of the School Regulations cannot be applied to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was not attributable to the submission of the master’s degree paper. However, there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff that guidance professors first recommended the submission of a master’s degree paper and the acquisition of a master’s degree paper, and even if the Plaintiff first provided a master’s degree thesis by soliciting instruction professors to submit a master’s degree paper and obtain a master’s degree, it appears that the Plaintiff’s submission of a master’s degree paper was attributable to the Plaintiff’s act due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and Article 48 of the School Regulations does not require “the cause attributable to a person who has obtained a degree” as a consequence of

D) However, as to whether the Plaintiff’s act of plagiarism was before acquiring the Plaintiff’s master’s degree, the Plaintiff’s act of plagiarism was before acquiring the Plaintiff’s master’s degree. Since the Plaintiff’s master’s degree was merely reported to the press, it cannot be deemed that “the Plaintiff’s act of plagiarism upon Nonparty’s master’s master’s degree in the light of the Plaintiff’s management administration graduate school” based on such press report itself cannot be deemed as “the Plaintiff’s act of impairing school honor.” Therefore, the determination of revocation of the conferment of the instant degree based on Article 48 of the graduate school regulations can not be applied even if Article 48 of the above school regulations cannot be applied.

E) Ultimately, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Plaintiff’s master’s degree was conducted without legitimate submission and authorization procedures in violation of the Higher Education Act and the Enforcement Decree, and thus, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Plaintiff’s master’s degree is null and void. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s revocation of the conferment of degree is invalid from the beginning.

B) Around December 1978, the Plaintiff submitted a master’s degree thesis to the Plaintiff and received a master’s degree from the industrial graduate school of the Hanyang University on or around February 1979. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have never submitted a master’s degree paper and did not have any procedure to accept the Plaintiff’s master’s degree. In addition, in full view of the purport of arguments as to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the Plaintiff completed the Plaintiff’s doctorate course based on the master’s degree at Hanyang University, and completed the Plaintiff’s completion of the Plaintiff’s doctorate course. As such, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Plaintiff’s master’s degree was null and void, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it would result in the Plaintiff’s invalidity of the Plaintiff’s master’s degree since it was submitted a master’s degree paper to obtain the Plaintiff’s master’s degree from Hanyang University, and that the Plaintiff’s claim to obtain a master’s degree by examining the Plaintiff’s master’s degree was without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the revocation of the conferment of a degree is null and void due to the defects in violation of the provisions of the Research Promotion Committee of the Hanyang University and the defects in the violation of the school regulations as seen earlier. As long as the Defendant asserted that the revocation of the conferment of a degree is valid, the Plaintiff has the interest to seek confirmation, so the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Red Sheet (Presiding Judge)