(a) Where a professor is dismissed during the term of appointment but such dismissal is null and void, his/her status relationship at the expiration of the term of appointment;

(b) Where a litigation seeking confirmation of a previous legal relationship has a profit immediately determined;

(c) The case holding that there is a benefit in seeking nullification of the dismissal disposition even if it becomes impossible to recover the status any longer after the period of employment expires after the dismissal disposition referred to in the above paragraph (a) has expired;

A. Where there is no ground provision that grants the duty to re-appoint a teacher whose term of appointment expires under the articles of incorporation of a school juristic person or the personnel regulations of a university faculty, the professor, even if he was dismissed from the school juristic person before the expiration of the term of appointment, shall lose his status as a professor naturally due to the expiration of the term of appointment.

B. Even in the past legal relations, if the current rights or legal status has been affected, and it is recognized as a valid and appropriate means to get a judgment on confirmation of such legal relations in order to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to the present rights or legal status, the litigation seeking confirmation of such legal relations shall be deemed to have an immediate final and conclusive interest, and such viewing also accords with the dispute resolution function and dispute prevention function of the confirmation litigation

C. In light of Article 33(1)8 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 77 subparag. 1 of the Education Act, and Article 54(3) of the Private School Act, professors can only be treated as disqualified persons who cannot be appointed as public officials or teachers for three years from the date of a disposition of dismissal due to a disposition of dismissal. Moreover, even after the expiration of the disqualified period, there is no doubt that the force subject to disciplinary dismissal will be more unfavorable than those who have no such force in appointing public officials or teachers, and thus, there is no room for doubt that such force would be more unfavorable reasons to the appointment of public officials or teachers. Thus, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of the dismissal disposition in order to eliminate risks or apprehensions to the legal status that can be appointed

(a) Article 53-2(3) of the Private School Act; Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 33(1)8 of the State Public Officials Act; Article 77 subparag. 1 of the Education Act; Article 54(3) of the Private School Act;

A.B.(c) Supreme Court Decision 91Da1134 delivered on June 25, 1991 (Gong1991,203) (Gong1991,203). 86Nu2622 delivered on June 9, 1987 (Gong1987,1140) (Gong1991,2230) decided on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991,2230), 93Da5093 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong193,1538), 78Meu7 delivered on July 11, 1978 (Gong1978,1105), 90Nu3119 delivered on October 23, 1990 (GongGong190,240).

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na4400 delivered on July 30, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff 1’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

The court below acknowledged that Plaintiff 1 was appointed from time evidence to August 31, 1991 by the term of appointment until August 31, 1991. The court below determined that Plaintiff 1 was dismissed from his position as professor automatically due to the expiration of the term of appointment, even if Plaintiff 1 was dismissed from his position before the expiration of the term of appointment due to lack of job performance and lack of work performance, even if it was judged that the above Plaintiff 1 was dismissed from his position before the expiration of the term of appointment due to the expiration of the term of appointment, since there were no grounds for granting the duty of reappointment to teachers whose term of appointment expires under the articles of incorporation or the personnel regulations of university professors.

According to the records, it is reasonable to determine that the above plaintiff lost his status as a professor due to the expiration of the term of appointment, notwithstanding the fact-finding of the court below that the above plaintiff was unable to be reappointed and the dismissal disposition that was in the term of appointment was invalidated. There is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the party members cited by the theory of lawsuit are no errors in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and it is not a proper precedent as it differs from the case of this case. There

2. We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

(1) As to ground of appeal No. 1

As alleged in the theory of theory, Plaintiff 1 lost his status as a professor at the expiration of the term of appointment due to the expiration of the term of appointment, and even if the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action is confirmed to be null and void, it is impossible to restore his status as professor. Therefore, the lawsuit seeking nullification of the dismissal disposition of this case is not only a claim for confirmation of past legal relations.

However, even in the past legal relations, if the current rights or legal status has been affected, and it is recognized as a valid and appropriate means to get a judgment on confirmation of such legal relations in order to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to the current rights or legal status, the litigation for confirmation of such legal relations shall be deemed to have an interest in immediate confirmation. Moreover, as such viewing is consistent with the dispute resolution function and dispute prevention function of the confirmation litigation, if the dismissal disposition continues to exist and the plaintiff is affected by other rights or legal status than the teaching status, and if it is recognized as an effective and appropriate means to get a confirmation of invalidity of the above dismissal disposition in order to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to such rights or legal status, it shall be deemed that there is an

However, Article 33 (1) 8 of the State Public Officials Act provides that the grounds for disqualification of a public official who is subject to a disciplinary action, and for whom three years have not passed after being dismissed by a disciplinary action, Article 77 (1) 1 of the Education Act provides that a person who is disqualified for the appointment of a public official cannot take a public office under the provisions of other Acts and subordinate statutes, and Article 54 (3) of the Private School Act provides that a person who is disqualified for the appointment of a public official may be released from his office. In light of the above provisions, Plaintiff 1 must be treated as a disqualified person who cannot be appointed as a public office or teacher for three years from the date of the disposition of dismissal due to the dismissal of this case, and even after the expiration of the disqualified period, the power of the above disciplinary action as in this case shall not be considered as more unfavorable causes than those who have no such power, and therefore, the above Plaintiff shall be deemed as a person with interest in seeking nullification of the dismissal disposition in order to eliminate risks or uncertainty in legal status that can be appointed as a public office or teacher.

The judgment of the court below with the same purport is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in confirmation, such as the theory of lawsuit. We are without merit.

(2) Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The fact-finding and judgment of the court below on the grounds of removal from position and disciplinary dismissal against the plaintiff 1 are acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of facts or legitimate grounds of removal from position due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

(3) Although the Defendant filed an appeal against the Plaintiff 2, it did not include all the grounds of appeal against the said Plaintiff in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief dated October 2, 1992, and did not constitute grounds of ex officio investigation.

3. Therefore, all appeals by plaintiffs 1 and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)