Whether a person having authority to take a disciplinary action may request a disciplinary committee to re-resolution on the ground that the details of the disciplinary action of the teachers' disciplinary committee on private school teachers are less

The purpose of Articles 61 through 66 of the Private School Act is to establish a disciplinary committee in a separate agency from the authorized person having authority for disciplinary action to independently deliberate and decide on disciplinary action against teachers, and it appears that the authorized person having authority for disciplinary action intends to secure the propriety and impartiality of disciplinary action and guarantee the status of teachers by allowing them to take disciplinary action. In addition, in the case of disciplinary action against private school teachers, the disciplinary authority for disciplinary action against public educational officials may demand a reconsideration of the disciplinary committee because the person having authority for disciplinary action is dissatisfied with the decision of the disciplinary committee, or the provisions of the State Public Officials Act on the request for disciplinary action in the disciplinary procedure against public educational officials are not applied mutatis mutandis to the disciplinary procedure against private school teachers. Furthermore, in the case of private school, the principle of the provisions of the State Public Officials Act, such as the State Public Officials Act, requesting a review to the higher disciplinary committee cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to the disciplinary procedure against private school teachers. Thus, unless there are special provisions in the articles of association of school juristic persons or the regulations on personnel management of a private school, so long as the authorized person has passed a disciplinary committee on his own or its change.

Articles 61 and 66 of the Private School Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The Ministry of Education Disciplinary Review Committee

Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Joint Law Firm, Attorney Seo Young-ro, et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu28138 delivered on June 17, 1993

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

The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal are examined (the grounds of appeal on the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the appellate brief are examined to the extent that it supplements the grounds of appeal).

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action against the Intervenor to the Plaintiff was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff did not request a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff to dismiss the Plaintiff under the principle of disciplinary action against the Intervenor to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as “the Intervenor”) and that the Plaintiff’s new disciplinary action against the Plaintiff was invalid on March 1, 190, and that the Plaintiff’s new disciplinary action against the Intervenor was not issued against the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s new disciplinary action against the Intervenor was not issued against the Plaintiff under his/her responsibility, and that the Plaintiff’s new disciplinary action against the Intervenor was not issued against the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s new disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s new disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, which was thus invalid on the ground that the Plaintiff’s new disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s new disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s new disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s new disciplinary committee was dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff’s new disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s new disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s new disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.

2. However, in disciplinary action against a private school teacher in Articles 61 through 66 of the Private School Act, the person having an authority to take an action shall request the disciplinary committee to take disciplinary action according to the result of such disciplinary action. The purport of the above provisions is to establish a separate institution from the person having an authority to take an action to take an action to independently deliberate and decide on disciplinary action against a teacher, and to guarantee the status of a teacher by securing appropriateness and impartiality of disciplinary action and by allowing the person having an authority to take an action to take an action to take an action so as to take an action so that the person having an authority to take an action can request a disciplinary action against a teacher in a private school, or the above provisions of the State Public Officials Act on the request for disciplinary action against a public educational official are not applied mutatis mutandis to a disciplinary action against a private school teacher in the disciplinary procedure. Furthermore, since the above provisions of the State Public Officials Act, in the case of a private school, which request a higher disciplinary committee to review a disciplinary action against a private school teacher, the above provisions of the National Public Officials Act cannot apply mutatis mutandis to a disciplinary action against a teacher.

3. In light of the above legal principles, the court below held that the disciplinary committee's disciplinary action of this case against the plaintiff was first suspended for three months, but the disciplinary committee's disciplinary action of this case was decided again upon request by the person having authority over disciplinary action, and based on this decision, once the person having authority over disciplinary action takes disciplinary action against the plaintiff, the disciplinary action cannot be deemed null and void cannot be deemed to have been erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to disciplinary action against the teacher of private school, and there is reason to point

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)