(a) Whether the validity of the provisions of the articles of incorporation of a school foundation under the Private School Act before the amendment is invalidated where the qualifications of disciplinary committee members and the person authorized to appoint and dismiss them have changed due to the amendment of the Private School Act

(b) Whether the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials applies mutatis mutandis to a disciplinary procedure for the teacher of a private school.

(c) Where, as a result of the deliberation of the disciplinary action by the Private School Teachers' Disciplinary Committee without a prior decision on the voting method, the dismissal list reaches a majority of the incumbent members because the dismissal list was to be held by the 4th, 1 month of suspension from office, 3 months of suspension from office, 2 months of suspension from office, and 3 months of suspension from office, and the new vote was held by a majority of the incumbent members, whether the kind

A. The articles of association of a school juristic person under the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4266 of Apr. 7, 190) shall be natural until the revision of the amended Private School Act is duly authorized, unless it violates the amended Private School Act. However, even though the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss disciplinary committee members is changed to the school juristic person in question, although the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss disciplinary committee members was before and after the school teacher or director of the school juristic person in question due to the enforcement of the amended Private School Act, the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss disciplinary committee members shall be the school principal in question and the qualification for disciplinary committee members shall be the school principal in question, and it would result in completely disregarding the purport of the amended Private School Act.

B. With respect to the disciplinary action against a teacher of a private school, only the provisions of the disciplinary procedure as prescribed by the Private School Act shall be applied, and the disciplinary procedure as prescribed by the Decree on the Disciplinary Action against

C. If the school juristic person disciplinary committee has decided to vote again for the period of suspension or reduction of the kind of disciplinary action after the resolution was made by the school juristic person disciplinary committee according to the articles of incorporation of the school juristic person which provides that the matters not determined by the articles of incorporation shall be determined by the chairperson, and if the school juristic person disciplinary committee has decided to vote again for the period of suspension or reduction of the number of disciplinary action, even though the resolution was made, if all the disciplinary committee members present their opinions in an indefinite name without making a prior decision on the method of voting, the disciplinary committee shall not be bound to decide how to deal with the separate opinions of three months of suspension or suspension from office in accordance with the articles of incorporation, and as long as all the disciplinary committee members present their opinions in an indefinite name without making a prior decision on the method of voting, it shall be deemed that the new vote is valid, and as long as the result of the above voting was decided to hold a new vote again by the majority of all incumbent members, it shall not be deemed that the new vote was a kind of disciplinary action taken after the voting.

A. Article 62 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4266 of Apr. 7, 1990); Article 62(2) of the Private School Act

A.B. (C) Supreme Court Decision 93Da50628 delivered on October 25, 1994 (dong). Supreme Court Decision 87Nu131 delivered on April 11, 1989 (Gong1989,728) (Gong198), Supreme Court Decision 93Da39614 delivered on May 13, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 168), Supreme Court Decision 93Da3745 delivered on May 14, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1705) (Gong177 delivered on April 12, 1994).

Law Firm Jin, Attorney Yoon Il-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant

The Daejeon Institute of Education for the Supervision of School Foundation

Daejeon High Court Decision 93Na2443 delivered on September 7, 1993

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

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

Article 62 of the Private School Act and Article 24-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act prior to the amendment, Article 62 of the Private School Act provides that the members of a university teachers' disciplinary committee in charge of disciplinary action against teachers of a college educational institution shall be appointed from among the school teachers of the relevant school, but Article 62 (2) of the Private School Act amended by Act No. 4226 of April 7, 190 provides that the teachers' disciplinary committee shall be comprised of not less than five but not more than nine members, and the members shall be appointed by the relevant school juristic person from among the teachers of the relevant school or the directors of the relevant school juristic person, but the number of members

However, Article 60(3) of the former Articles of Incorporation of Defendant Corporation accepted the provisions on disciplinary action against teachers under the Private School Act before the amendment, and limited the qualifications of disciplinary committee members to school teachers. As such, the above provisions of the articles of incorporation must be effective until the amendment is made lawful unless they violate the amended Private School Act, unless the theory of lawsuit is pointed out (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu131, Apr. 11, 1989). However, even if the qualifications of disciplinary committee members and disciplinary committee members are changed before and after the enforcement of the amended Private School Act, deeming the above provisions of the articles of incorporation that limit the qualifications of disciplinary committee members to school teachers is valid as a result of entirely disregarding the purport of the above amendment of the Private School Act cannot be accepted.

Therefore, it is reasonable that the court below denied the validity of Article 60 (3) of the former Articles of Incorporation of the defendant corporation, and that the board of directors of the defendant corporation made up of four directors of the defendant corporation and five teachers of the relevant school under the amended Private School Act is lawful. The judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of law as to the organization of the disciplinary committee, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

A. Whether the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials applies mutatis mutandis to the disciplinary action against a teacher of a private school, such as this case, only the provisions of the disciplinary procedure under the Private School Act shall apply, and the disciplinary procedure under the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials shall not be applied by analogy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da3745, May 14, 1993). Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held to the same purport is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension

B. Defect in the voting method of a disciplinary action: First of all, the decision is made in relation to any five kinds of disciplinary action as a sample of the disciplinary action, which is stipulated in Article 61(2) of the Private School Act, and then, if the kinds of disciplinary action are suspended or reduced, the theory that the new decision should be made for the period is understood in terms of protecting the rights and interests of the person to be disciplined, but if the decision was made in accordance with Article 68 of the former Articles of Incorporation of the defendant corporation, which provides that the matters not determined in the articles of incorporation are determined by the chairperson after the resolution of the disciplinary committee, was made in the same manner as above, it shall be considered that the decision was made without the prior decision of the court below on the method of voting, and if all the members present their opinions in their name on May 29, 1992, the above two opinions should not be decided by the disciplinary committee in accordance with the provisions of the articles of incorporation, and it shall be considered that the above two new votes were not held for 13 months or more.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court below that held to the same purport, and we cannot see that there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

Examining evidence in comparison with the records, the court below's determination that the dismissal disposition of this case against the plaintiff is not an abuse of discretion is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the limit of disciplinary discretion, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)