Legal nature of a private school teacher appointment contract;

Although a contract for the appointment of a teacher of a private school is made according to the procedures prescribed by the Private School Act, if the legal nature of the contract is not different from the employment contract under private law, and if there is any ground for invalidation or revocation in the declaration of intention of the parties to the contract on the contract, the other party may, as a matter of course, claim the invalidity or revocation of the contract for the appointment and reject or extinguish the occurrence of the legal effect, and attach such conditions to the contract, and if the contract is conditional, the effect of the contract shall naturally depend on

Article 655 of the Civil Act, Article 53-2 of the Private School Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellant] Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na35768 delivered on February 1, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records of this case, with regard to the plaintiffs of the defendant corporation's revocation of reappointment of this case against the plaintiffs of this case on the ground that it was null and void disposition without the grounds for dismissal under the Private School Act, the defendant was dismissed from office on the ground that the plaintiffs who worked as private school teachers at the time of original adjudication, which the defendant originally operated by the defendant corporation, joined the Korean Teachers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Teachers' Union"). However, during the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal, the plaintiffs were reappointed as a teacher of the above school in the future and submitted a letter of withdrawal to the school to immediately withdraw from the school in order to ensure that the plaintiffs are reappointed as soon as they are reappointed, and the above lawsuit was concluded to dismiss the plaintiffs, even though they did not intend to do so even though they did not intend to do so, it is legitimate to revoke the contract of this case on the ground of the declaration of intention made by fraud, and even if this is not re-appointed, it is clearly asserted that such condition has not been fulfilled as the condition of withdrawal from the above school.

Although the contract for the appointment of a teacher of a private school is made according to the procedures prescribed in the Private School Act, if the legal nature of the contract is not different from the employment contract under private law, and if there is any ground for invalidation or revocation in the declaration of intention of the parties to the contract on the contract, the other party may, as a matter of course, assert the invalidation or revocation of the appointment contract and reject or extinguish the occurrence of legal effect, and if the contract is conditional, the validity of the contract shall be determined depending on whether the condition is fulfilled. However, according to the records of this case, it is clear that the above contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant is not a restoration of the status of the plaintiffs as a teacher, but a new appointment contract as seen above. Accordingly, the judgment criteria for the cancellation of the appointment in this case shall be determined in detail.

2. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that there is no agreement between the plaintiffs to withdraw from the assistance with the defendant at the time of their reappointment and submit the withdrawal letter to the defendant. In light of the records, there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the grounds of appeal, and in particular, in light of the contents of the evidence No. 4-3 (the document under the evidence No. 4, the "provokinging to return") cited as a valuable evidence supporting the defendant's argument in the grounds of appeal, it is nothing more than a written pledge that the plaintiffs would faithfully concentrate on education if they are reappointed in the future, so it is difficult to interpret that the plaintiffs expressed their intent to withdraw from the assistance with the defendant or submit the withdrawal letter to the defendant. Accordingly, as pointed out in the grounds of appeal of this case, it is not acceptable to accept all the grounds of appeal pointing this out.

3. Accordingly, the appeal of this case is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)