In a case where a school juristic person expresses his intention to resign but withdraws it before the resolution of the board of directors, the case holding that the said school juristic person may not withdraw it without the consent of the board of directors, as long as such declaration of intention to resign has reached the school juristic person by deeming that the said declaration of intention to resign was cancelled

In a case where a school juristic person expresses his/her intention to resign but withdraws it before the resolution of the board of directors, the case holding that the said school juristic person cannot withdraw it without the consent of the board of directors, as long as the said declaration of intention to resign reaches the school juristic person, on the grounds that it is not an offer to terminate the employment contract, but an cancellation notice to the effect that the pertinent employment contract is terminated, in light of all the circumstances such as the contents of the written resignation, the motive for and background of preparation

Articles 111, 543, and 660 of the Civil Act; Article 2(1)4 of the Labor Standards Act; Article 53-2(1)1 of the Private School Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney Hah Jeong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant School Foundation (Law Firm Chang, Attorney Park Ma-ok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

January 16, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff confirms that the plaintiff is in the position of teacher of the defendant's (name omitted) university.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is the operator of the (title omitted) University (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant School”) and the Plaintiff is appointed as a full-time lecturer on March 1, 1983 as a civil engineering department (the name of the department as a major in the construction environment department) of the Defendant School (the name of the department as a major in the construction environment department) and was in the position of professor as of December 2, 2006 through an associate professor and associate professor.

B. On December 28, 2006, the Plaintiff submitted a resignation letter to the Defendant school on February 28, 2007, stating that “I will submit to the Defendant school a resignation letter on December 28, 2007, stating that “I will have been treated as a traffic accident while Cheongju was under the influence of an individual business as of December 20, 2006, while Cheongju as of December 20, 2006.”

C. Accordingly, the Defendant school held a teachers’ personnel committee on January 4, 2007 to re-examine the Plaintiff’s intention of resignation, and received the Plaintiff’s intention of resignation, and thereafter, decided to approve the Plaintiff’s dismissal from office on February 14, 2007 by the board of directors held on January 22, 2007 upon the proposal of the principal of the school on January 22, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6, Eul 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention of resignation, it is merely an offer for termination of the agreement on the labor contract, and thus, the Plaintiff’s dismissal from office based on the above written resignation is null and void, as the Plaintiff withdraws his/her intention of resignation before it is accepted through the resolution of the board of

(b) Markets:

On the other hand, the declaration of intention to resign is a notice of cancellation of a labor contract, unless there are special circumstances. Thus, the date on which the plaintiff submitted a written resignation on February 28, 2007 is merely considered in the school affairs administration of the defendant school and it is not sufficient to regard it as an offer for termination of the agreement. In the case of dismissal from office due to the plaintiff's submission of a written resignation, there is no need to go through the resolution of the board of directors (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da11668, Oct. 11, 2007). Other circumstances such as the contents of the written resignation, the motive and circumstance of the preparation and submission of the written resignation, and the motive for the withdrawal of the declaration of intention to resign, it is reasonable to deem the plaintiff's submission of the written resignation is not an offer for termination of the labor contract, and therefore, as long as such declaration of intention to resign has reached the defendant's school, regardless of whether it is approved by the board of directors, the plaintiff can not withdraw it without the consent

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)