(a) Whether disciplinary action may be taken pursuant to the articles of incorporation with the same contents as those of the Acts and subordinate statutes prior to the amendment, since the provisions of the Private School Act concerning disciplinary action against teachers have been amended but the articles of incorporation of school juristic persons have not been amended;

(b) A case where the transitional provisions of the articles of incorporation of a school juristic person conflict with those of the Private School Act; and

A. The Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, by eliminating the previous provisions that conflict with the provisions of Article 62(2) of the Private School Act, which were amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 1990, provides that disciplinary cases which continue after Apr. 7, 1990, the enforcement date of the new Act shall be subject to a disciplinary resolution by the teachers' disciplinary committee organized under Article 62(2) of the new Act. Thus, the former Articles of Incorporation on the composition of the teachers' disciplinary committee of the school juristic person affiliated therewith naturally lose its effect. Therefore, a school juristic person cannot take disciplinary action against teachers pursuant to the amended Act and subordinate statutes, but is not subject to the amendment of the articles of incorporation, and if so, it is unlawful as disciplinary action against a school juristic person in violation of the same Act and subordinate statutes

(b) The case holding that the provisions of the Addenda of the new articles of incorporation concerning a disciplinary case pending during such period, if the supplementary provisions of the new articles of incorporation of the school foundation stipulate that even with respect to a disciplinary case pending between the enforcement date of the new articles of incorporation and the enforcement date of the new articles of incorporation shall not conflict with the provisions of the new articles of incorporation;

(a)Article 62(2) of the Private School Act and Articles 1 and 4 of the Addenda ( April 7, 1990) of the Private School Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu131 delivered on April 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 728) (Gong19614 delivered on May 13, 1994)

[Judgment of the court below]

Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee of the Ministry of Education

Defendant of the Daejeon High School of Education and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu27432 delivered on April 8, 1994

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

Defendant and Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s ground of appeal (the grounds of appeal on the supplementary appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the submission period are considered to the extent that it supplements the grounds of appeal).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: while the plaintiff was in office as a member of the Defendant joining the Defendant’s Intervenor, on March 10, 1992, due to the Plaintiff’s failure to attend the music university at the Seoul National University in 1991 as an associate professor, and damaged his dignity as a teacher; the Defendant’s Intervenor was subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff as of June 8, 192; the above teachers’ disciplinary committee was composed of five teachers of the pertinent school and four directors of the pertinent school; and determined that the Defendant’s articles of association (amended and enforced May 23, 1992; hereinafter the new articles of association) of the Intervenor joining the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s disciplinary action against the pertinent university faculty member’s dismissal of the Plaintiff on the ground that it constitutes a disciplinary action against the pertinent university faculty member under Article 60(3) of the previous Articles of association (hereinafter the previous articles of association) was unlawful by the head of the university, other than the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action against the pertinent university faculty member.

2. A. However, the Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226, Apr. 7, 1990; hereinafter the same Act) newly established Article 62(2) of the Addenda to the Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226, Apr. 7, 1990; hereinafter the same Act) provides that the qualifications for disciplinary committee members shall be directors of the relevant school or school juristic person, and the number of members who are directors of the relevant school juristic person or private school juristic person shall not exceed 1/2 of the members. Article 1 of the Addenda to the transitional provision provides that "this Act shall enter into force from the date of its promulgation," Article 4 provides that "this Act shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 62(2) of this Act, deliberate and decide on disciplinary cases which are still in force at the time of its enforcement, the former Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, which shall be in violation of the previous provisions of Article 62(2) of the new Act, shall become effective as disciplinary action against the new school juristic person under 9.

B. However, according to the facts duly established by the court below, since it is obvious that the date when a disciplinary case against the plaintiff was pending is the date of March 10, 1992 when a request for disciplinary decision was made, and after the new law became effective, Article 60 (3) of the former Articles of Incorporation concerning the composition of the new articles of Incorporation and Article 60 (3) of the former Articles of Incorporation cannot be applied since it becomes invalid. Meanwhile, according to the records, the disciplinary committee which has decided a disciplinary case against the plaintiff can be known that it was a legitimate disciplinary committee pursuant to Article 62 (2) of the new Act, and therefore there is a defect in its

C. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the disciplinary dismissal disposition against the plaintiff is null and void on the ground that there is a defect in the composition of the disciplinary committee, shall be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the articles of incorporation of the school foundation in violation of the provisions of the Private School Act.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)