Legal nature of notice of decision to refuse the reappointment of a university teacher at the expiration of the term of appointment, and whether such notice constitutes "Disciplinary action or other unfavorable measure against the will of the teacher" subject to a request for review under Article 9 (1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status (negative)

A teacher of a college educational institution appointed for a fixed period pursuant to Article 53-2 (3) of the Private School Act shall be retired ipso facto from office without undergoing special procedures, such as decision to refuse reappointment, etc. If the term of appointment expires, even if the appointing authority notified the teacher of the decision not to be reappointed, it is nothing more than confirming and notifying the teacher that he/she will be retired ipso facto from office at the expiration of the term of office, and it does not have any legal effect, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a "voluntary action or other unfavorable measure against the will of the teacher" subject to a request for review under Article 9 (1)

Article 9 (1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status; Article 53-2 (3) of the Private School Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da4288 delivered on May 13, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1684), Supreme Court Decision 93Da61789 delivered on July 29, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2234), Supreme Court Decision 94Da12852 delivered on October 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2976), Supreme Court Decision 93Da5425 delivered on January 20, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 882), Supreme Court Decision 96Da7069 delivered on June 27, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2315)

Plaintiff

Ministry of Education Disciplinary Review Committee

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu52150 delivered on May 29, 1998

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

A teacher of a college educational institution appointed for a fixed period under Article 53-2 (3) of the Private School Act shall be retired ipso facto from office without undergoing special procedures, such as a decision to refuse reappointment, etc. If the term of appointment expires, even if the appointing authority notified the teacher of a decision not to be reappointed, it is nothing more than confirming and notifying that the teacher will be retired ipso facto from office at the expiration of the term of office, and it does not result in any legal effect (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da7069, Jun. 27, 1997). Therefore, such notification cannot be deemed as a "voluntary action or any other unfavorable measure against the will of the teacher," which is subject to a request for review under Article 9 (1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)