logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.15 2016나2088637
재임용거부처분 무효확인 등
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims for nullification of each disposition rejecting reappointment that has been changed in exchange in the trial of the party and the plaintiffs' claims for nullification.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Defendant is a school juristic person that establishes and operates a D University. 2) The Plaintiffs were appointed as faculty members of D University on March 2003, and were reappointed or promoted once again. The two years from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2015, respectively, of the contract period from March 1, 2013 to February 1, 2015, Plaintiff A was reappointed as social welfare counseling and associate professor, and Plaintiff B was reappointed as E and associate professor.

(hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant” even if the D University is called. (b)

On December 29, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the fact that the terms of employment of the Plaintiffs expire on February 28, 2015 and the procedures for filing an application for deliberation on reappointment on or around October 17, 2014, and that the Plaintiffs applied for deliberation on reappointment to the Defendant. The Defendant notified the Defendant of the refusal of reappointment to the Plaintiffs on or around December 29, 2014 after deliberation by the teachers’ personnel committee and the board of directors. (2) On March 11, 2015, the teachers’ appeals review filed an appeal seeking revocation of the disposition of refusal of reappointment to the Plaintiffs with the teachers’ personnel committee. (3) On March 11, 2015, the teachers’ appeals review committee amended Article 17 of the Teachers’ Personnel Management Regulations and Article 4 of the Teachers’ Personnel Management Evaluation Regulations, and applied the amended provisions immediately without any lapse of the aforementioned provisions to the Plaintiffs on the grounds that the Plaintiffs’ trust was infringed and thus was unlawful, and the decision was revoked by the Defendant.

C. Notwithstanding the Plaintiffs’ instant lawsuit and the Defendant’s revocation decision of the 1 Teachers’ Appeal Committee on August 31, 2016 against the Plaintiffs as of March 11, 2015, the Defendant did not comply with the procedures for review for reappointment against the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs shall be dismissed on October 21, 2015 at the Seoul Western District Court on December 29, 2014.

arrow