[1] Whether an act detrimental to the dignity of a private school teacher can be dismissed regardless of the punishment provisions of the private school juristic person (affirmative)

[2] The meaning and standard of determining the act of injury to private school teachers

[3] Criteria to determine whether disciplinary action against a private school teacher goes beyond the limits of discretion

[4] The case holding that a dismissal disposition against a private school teacher is an abuse of the right of disciplinary discretion

[1] The Private School Act established based on Article 31(4) and (6) of the Constitution provides that not only the rights of private school teachers such as guarantee of status, economic status, and guarantee of social status of private school teachers, but also the obligations of school teachers such as prohibition of acts that are likely to impair the right of citizens to receive education. The disciplinary action under Article 61 of the Private School Act is against the violation of the obligations of school teachers under public law, such as the Education Act. On the other hand, the internal rules of private schools regarding disciplinary action are merely a provision on disciplinary action against a violation of the obligation of school teachers within the scope of the law as an employer by a teacher of a private school or an operator’s employment contract with a private school or an operator’s duty of loyalty. Thus, as long as the Private School Act provides for dismissal as a kind of disciplinary action under the Private School Act, it is possible to dismiss a school juristic person

[2] In light of the fact that a teacher must always serve as a letter of apology, study the principles and methods of academic support and education, study the principles and methods of academic support and education, and conduct the education of students, it requires more morality than ordinary workers, and there is a concern that a teacher's act of injury to teachers is likely to harm the people's trust as well as the entire society of teachers. Thus, the Private School Act stipulates that a teacher of a private school is obliged to maintain his/her dignity not only in relation to his/her duties but also in private areas. Here, the grade of dignity refers to a person who is not injured because he/she performs his/her duties as an educator for the people, and whether an act constitutes an act of injury to dignity should be determined by sound social norms depending on specific circumstances.

[3] When a disciplinary measure is taken against a disciplinary person who is a teacher under the Private School Act, the disciplinary measure shall be taken at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of the authority has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it may be deemed unlawful only when it is recognized that the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure has abused the authority to take the disciplinary measure. If a disciplinary measure against a teacher has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it may be deemed that the contents of the disciplinary measure can be objectively and objectively unreasonable in light of various factors such as the content and nature of the alleged misconduct, the purpose of the disciplinary measure, and the criteria for the determination of disciplinary measures. Even if the exercise of the authority to take the authority to take the disciplinary measures is left at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measures, it is against the public interest principle that should exercise the authority to take the disciplinary measure for public interest, or the person having the authority to take the disciplinary action generally takes a disciplinary measure contrary to the degree of flight, thereby violating the principle of proportionality or the principle of equality.

[4] The case holding that a dismissal disposition against a private school teacher is an abuse of the disciplinary authority

[1] Article 61 of the Private School Act, Article 31 (4) and (6) of the Constitution / [2] Article 61 (1) 3 of the Private School Act, Article 31 (4) and (6) of the Constitution / [3] Article 61 of the Private School Act, Article 31 (4) and (6) of the Constitution, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [4] Article 61 of the Private School Act, Article 31 (4) and (6) of the Constitution, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[3] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu11308 delivered on September 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 2298), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7325 delivered on November 14, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3874) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu14637 delivered on November 25, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 123), Supreme Court Decision 98Du12017 delivered on November 10, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 280), Supreme Court Decision 98Du6951 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong200Sang, 73)

Plaintiff

Participant of the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor (Attorney above-Law)

Provided, That a school foundation's higher level of attorney-at-law

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu46353 delivered on September 16, 1998

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's non-party 1's act of removing the plaintiff's 195 professor's 20th or more of the date of the above 195 professor's 20th or higher school admission and then the plaintiff's act of removing the plaintiff's 195 professor's 1's 6th or higher school entrance fees was an act of purchasing the plaintiff's 1's 6th or higher school entrance fees, and the plaintiff's act of removing the plaintiff's 1's 6th or higher school entrance fees was an act of removing the plaintiff's 1's 195 professor's 1's 6th or higher school entrance fees, and the plaintiff's act of removing the plaintiff's 1's 6th or higher school entrance fees was an act of removing the plaintiff's 1's 1's 6th or lower school entrance fees, and the plaintiff's 1's 6th or lower school entrance.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. As to the violation of the rules of evidence among the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and reasonable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal. There is no reason to discuss.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Under Article 31(4) and (6) of the Constitution, the Private School Act, which was established based on Article 31(4) and (6), also provides for matters concerning the rights of private school teachers such as guaranteeing the status, economic, and social status of private school teachers as well as the duties of school teachers such as prohibition of acts that are likely to impair the right of citizens to receive education. The disciplinary action under Article 61 of the Private School Act is against the violation of public law, such as the Education Act. Meanwhile, the internal rules on disciplinary action are merely those concerning disciplinary action against a school juristic person or manager, as a teacher of a private school is appointed by an employment contract with a school juristic person or manager and bears the duty of good faith to an employer. Thus, as long as the Private School Act provides for dismissal as a kind of disciplinary action, it is possible for a school juristic person, regardless of the contents of the intervenor punishment regulations, it shall be removed from the injury to dignity regardless of the contents of the intervenor punishment regulations. It is justifiable in the judgment of the court below to the effect that there is no ground for appeal.

C. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 and No. 3

(1) Whether such act constitutes injury to dignity

In light of the fact that teachers need to be able to improve their character and qualities at all times, study the principles and methods of academic support and education, and study the principles and methods of education to ensure the education of students, teachers need more morality than ordinary workers, and the act of injury to teachers' dignity is likely to undermine the people's trust as well as the entire society of private schools. Accordingly, the Private School Act stipulates that teachers of private schools are obliged to maintain their dignity as well as the part related to their duties. Here, dignity refers to a person who is not fluent by taking charge of the duties as an educator for citizens, and is determined by sound social norms depending on specific circumstances.

According to the records, the plaintiff, the vice-president of the professor's meeting for the examination of this paper, was able to take a bath as stated in the judgment of the court below on the ground that the non-party 4, the vice-president of the professor's meeting for the examination of this paper criticizes his own argument. After his return to the intervenor, the plaintiff's disciplinary procedure was commenced upon his request, the plaintiff sent the mail of the judgment of the court below, which cited the matters referred to in the written answer or within the school as a content certification, without confirming whether it was true or not, and without confirming whether it was a fact to demand the suspension of the disciplinary procedure. The plaintiff sent the mail of the judgment of the court below, which cited the matters referred to in the written opinion of the court below, as a content certification, without suffering from the awareness of the crime." The plaintiff's act constitutes an excessive damage to the plaintiff's dignity as a teacher of the above private school, regardless of whether the plaintiff's action as a professor of this case is legitimate.

However, in relation to the conversation with Nonparty 1, as long as it is difficult to deny that professors have the right to speak within a certain scope based on the autonomy and academic freedom of university guaranteed by the Constitution, and through the faculty council, etc., they can personally communicate on the matters of university operation. On the records, their conversations are conducted at the office of Nonparty 1, not within the school, but at the office of Nonparty 1, who is in charge of the president of the above university, and the contents of the conversation do not intend to spread false facts to the extent that the Plaintiff had already expressed his opinion in the name of the above faculty council, and Nonparty 1 did not express the Plaintiff’s argument and disclosed it after the lapse of one year and six months, and did not have any idea to spread it externally. At that time, Nonparty 2 was removed from the president of the Ministry of Education’s admission related documents and audit results on the financial management of the Ministry of Education, and even if Nonparty 2 did not have a full influence on the Intervenor’s personal injury, it should not be seen as an act of injury to his reputation.

(2) Whether the disciplinary discretion has been exceeded and abused

When a disciplinary measure is taken against a disciplinary person who is a teacher under the Private School Act, the disciplinary measure shall be taken at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure is deemed to have abused the discretionary power that has been placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretionary power, it may be unlawful. If a disciplinary measure against a teacher has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it should be determined that the contents of the disciplinary measure can be objectively and clearly unreasonable in light of various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure, the purpose to achieve the disciplinary measure, the criteria for the determination of disciplinary measures, etc., depending on the specific case, and even if the exercise of the authority to take the disciplinary measure is left at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, it is difficult to accept the decision of the court below that the disciplinary measure violates the principle of public interest that should exercise the authority to take disciplinary measures for public interest, or that the exercise of the authority to take the disciplinary measure goes against the principle of proportionality or the principle of fairness.

In light of the circumstances leading up to the disciplinary procedure of this case, the special audit of Nonparty 1 was initiated on around 193 by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education extended the scope of the audit of Nonparty 2, including the establishment of a new school and its affiliated hospitals, to the 1,70 billion won as a result of the 7th anniversary of the above disciplinary action against Nonparty 2’s removal of Nonparty 1 from the above university. In light of the fact that the 9th anniversary of the above disciplinary action against Nonparty 2’s removal of Nonparty 1 from the above university’s office, the 9th anniversary of the above disciplinary action against Nonparty 2’s removal from the above university’s office, and that the 9th anniversary of the above disciplinary action against Nonparty 2’s removal from the above university’s office, the 196th anniversary of the above disciplinary action against the 9th president’s removal from the university’s office and the 19th executive officer’s removal from the university’s office. However, the Plaintiff continued to submit the 9th executive officer’s recommendation to the 19th executive officer.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the decision on the reexamination of this case, which was made by Nonparty 1 as the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, was justifiable. In this context, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty to maintain dignity and the abuse of discretion in the dialogue between private school teachers, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)