When a decision is made by the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee to revoke or change a disciplinary action against a teacher of a private school corporation, whether there is a change in legal relations pursuant to the decision immediately without taking any particular measure of the school foundation

In light of the purport of Article 9(1) and Article 10(2) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status; Article 16(2)3 of the Regulations on the Review of Disciplinary Action, etc. against Teachers (Presidential Decree No. 13389, Jun. 19, 191); Article 16(2)3 of the same Act; and the purpose of the same Act that intends to improve teachers' status and promote educational development by improving honorable treatment and treatment of teachers by strengthening their status guarantee; private school teachers are appointed and dismissed by school juristic persons or school managers, and do not constitute power relations between private school teachers and school juristic persons under public law; however, in order to guarantee the status of private school teachers, the Review Committee may request a review by special remedy in order to ensure the guarantee of their status. On the other hand, even if a decision of the Review Committee rendered by the Review Committee on the purport that a disposition against school juristic persons does not fall under an administrative appeal, the Review Committee orders the person entitled to disposition to cancel or change the decision, and immediately change the legal relationship between the school juristic person and the decision.

Articles 9(1) and 10(2) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status, Article 16(2)3 of the Regulations on Review of Disciplinary Action, etc. against Teachers

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Attorney Lee Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na8237 delivered on May 6, 1994

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 9(1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act") provides that a teacher may file a request for review with the Review Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Review Committee"), and Article 10(2) of the Special Act provides that a decision of the Review Committee shall bind the person having authority to take measures. Article 16(2)3 of the Regulations on the Review of Teachers' Disciplinary Action, etc. (Presidential Decree No. 13389, Jun. 19, 191) provides that the Review Committee may order the person having authority to take measures to change the status of teachers by improving the honorable treatment and treatment of teachers, and by strengthening their status status guarantee (Article 1). In light of the purport of each of the above provisions and the purpose of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status, it shall not be deemed that a change in the status of teachers of a private school is the power relationship between the school juristic person and the school juristic person in the public law, but it shall not be immediately cancelled by the Review Committee's decision to change the status guarantee decision.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant dismissed the plaintiffs on February 28, 1993, but the Review Committee revoked the above dismissal disposition on May 20, 1993 upon the plaintiffs' request for review, and thus, the plaintiffs were reinstated as the revocation of the above dismissal disposition became final and conclusive on the date of the decision by the Review Committee. Thus, in light of the legal principles and records of the above special law, the judgment of the court below as above is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the judgment of the party members cited by the theory of the lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13707 delivered on February 12, 1993) is merely about the nature of the decision of the Review Committee, not about the validity of the decision of the Review Committee, and thus, it does not interfere with the above interpretation. There is no reason for the discussion.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)