[Judgment of the court below]

Teachers' Appeals Review Committee (Law Firm Hannuri, Attorneys Kim Jong-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant School Foundation (Law Firm Hannuri, Attorneys Kim Jong-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

June 12, 2008

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2007Guhap28243 Decided January 10, 2008

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The Intervenor joining the Defendant’s part resulting from the participation in the appeal cost, and the remainder, respectively, are borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On June 18, 2007, the defendant's decision to dismiss the claim to nullify the nullification of the dismissal disposition and the claim to revoke the rejection of the dismissal disposition against the defendant on June 18, 2007 between the plaintiff and the defendant joining the defendant.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and it is identical to the entry of the cause column of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the cause column of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and

2. Parts in height:

○ 제2쪽 아래에서 4번째 줄의 『2006. 10. 24.』 ⇒ 『2006. 10. 23.』

○ The following shall be added to the end of the seventh day below the sixth:

Since Article 17 of the Higher Education Act explicitly recognizes the teachers system in charge of “education”, Defendant asserts that teachers of higher education institutions may not be deemed to have to take charge of research. Article 17 of the Higher Education Act provides that “A school may have concurrent teachers, honorary professors, part-time lecturers, etc. in addition to teachers under Article 14(2) as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.” However, concurrent teachers, honorary professors, part-time lecturers, etc. who may take charge of education or research are clearly distinguishable from full-time teachers, such as professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and full-time lecturers as prescribed by Article 14(2) of the same Act, and “school teachers” as prescribed by Article 15(2) of the same Act shall be deemed to mean only such full-time teachers. Accordingly, unlike the Defendant’s assertion, Article 17 of the same Act provides that “If a full-time teacher is a former teacher, unlike a part-time teacher, in principle, the education and research should be conducted together with other grounds for interpretation.”

○ Subsequent to the seventh Twelth 12th mar, which shall be deemed to be without, the following shall be added:

[See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da38161, 38178 decided June 28, 2007]

○ 제9쪽 6번째 줄의 『교육기본법』 ⇒ 『교육기본법(2007. 12. 21. 법률 제8705호로 개정되기 전의 것)』

○ 제10쪽 5번째 줄의 『고등교육법』 ⇒ 『고등교육법(2007. 10. 17. 법률 제8638호로 개정되기 전의 것)』

○ During the 16th and 17th, the following shall be added:

Article 14 (Classification of School Personnel)

(1) Universities, colleges, industrial colleges, teachers' colleges, and broadcasting and correspondence universities shall have the president or dean as the heads of schools, and junior colleges and technical colleges shall have deans as such.

(2) School teachers to be assigned to schools shall be classified into professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and full-time instructors in addition to presidents and deans referred to in paragraph (1).

○ 제11쪽 1번째 줄의 『사립학교법』 ⇒ 『사립학교법(2008. 3. 14. 법률 제8888호로 개정되기 전의 것)』

○ 제12쪽 5번째 줄의 『교원지위향상을 위한 특별법』 ⇒ 『교원지위향상을 위한 특별법(2008. 2. 29. 법률 제8852호로 개정되기 전의 것)』

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)