209 Gohap433 Nullification of denial of reappointment

1. KimA

2. B B.

3. Yellow Dust;

△△ School Foundation

October 8, 2009

November 5, 2009

1. The defendant confirmed that the disposition of refusal to re-election against the plaintiffs on June 26, 2008 is null and void. 2. The costs of the lawsuit are borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The facts that the term of office of the plaintiffs who held office as the cultural department, building department, civil engineering and associate professor of the defendant management university was scheduled to expire on August 31, 2008, and that the plaintiffs applied for reappointment to the defendant in accordance with the relevant provisions, such as Article 53-2 of the Private School Act on May 8, 2008, and the personnel committee for university teachers and the defendant's board of directors (hereinafter referred to as the "evaluation criteria of this case". The detailed allocation criteria are as follows: (a) after examining whether the plaintiffs meet the evaluation criteria for reappointment in accordance with attached Form 1; (b) whether the acquisition points of the plaintiffs are below average 60 points; (c) it is decided that the evaluation criteria of the plaintiffs are not re-appointed. Accordingly, the evaluation criteria of the general evaluation of the plaintiffs on June 26, 2008 with the delegation of the chief of the defendant's board of directors; (d) the evaluation criteria of the plaintiffs on the research activities for each of the parties as stated in attached Form 2(3).

A. Among the evaluation criteria of this case, the evaluation items of "realizing the founding ideology" consisting of 10 points: 10 points "Guidance of the founding ideology". The term "education of the founding ideology" itself is abstract and its contents are not specified. Thus, there is no specific allocation criteria, so the evaluation items do not constitute objective, reasonable grounds. In addition, Article 11 (1) of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall be equal before the law. No person shall be discriminated in all areas of political, economic, social and cultural life by gender, religion or social status." In view of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have freedom of religion," and it does not require that the teachers be reappointed as new teachers at the time of the appointment of teachers, and that it does not require that the plaintiffs be appointed as new teachers or staff members of the religious team without considering whether the plaintiffs' initial appointment of teachers is a new teachers or staff member of the religious team or not, and that it does not constitute an objective evaluation of the plaintiffs' freedom of religion without considering the plaintiffs' objective results of instruction or instruction.

B. Among the evaluation criteria of this case, the method of allocation of "education attitude and administrative cooperation" in the evaluation criteria of "education activities" is the method of deducting certain points from 20 points out of the total number of times when a teacher receives a reprimand, warning, or speaks. Since reprimand falls under a disciplinary measure provided for in Article 61 (2) of the Private School Act, it is reasonable to consider it in the examination of reappointment. However, since warning, caution, and submission of written statements are not based on disciplinary procedure under the Private School Act, it is more likely for an appraiser to intervene in the evaluation of reappointment, and "private school teachers are not subject to any unfavorable measure such as temporary retirement or dismissal against his will without any reasons provided for in the Private School Act." In view of the fact that the evaluation criteria of "special school teachers are more concentrated on the act of returning to school personnel such as reprimand, warning, etc.", the evaluation criteria of employment achievement or administrative activity of new students such as "the evaluation criteria of the total evaluation criteria of the study activity of this case" are no more than the evaluation criteria of new students of this case.

D. Among the evaluation criteria of this case, the "Public Announcement of Foreign Symnasium" and "Public Announcement of Symnasium" are divided into allocated points based on the number of authors of the thesis. In the case of joint literary works of not less than four authors, the "Public Symnasium" does not set the criteria for "Public Symnasium". Thus, even if a person subject to evaluation publishes or publishes a thesis, he/she is able to intervene in arbitrary judgments as to whether he/she satisfies the allocation criteria, and it cannot be concluded that there is no contribution of the person subject to evaluation on the ground that more than four persons jointly symnasiums the thesis, and rather, it is highly probable that the person subject to evaluation is the main author, and the "Public Announcement of Foreign Symnasium" and "Public Announcement of Symnasium" among the evaluation criteria of this case does not constitute objective and reasonable grounds.

E. Among the evaluation criteria of this case, the allocation criteria for the "point for assessment" includes the contents falling under the other evaluation criteria of this case. The allocation criteria for the 30 points for the 30 points for the 30 point for the 30 point for the 30 point for the 30 point for the 30 point for the 30 point for the 30 point for the 30 point for the 5 point for the 5 point for the 20 point for the 5 point for the 5 point for the 30 point for the 5 point for the 5 point for the 20 point for the 5 point for the 20 point for the 5 point for the 5 point for the 30 point for the 5 point for the 5 point for the 20 point for the 5 point for the 5 point for the 5 point for the 20 point for the 5 point for the 5 point for the 20 point for the 30 point for the 5 point for the 5 point for the 5 point for the 2 point for the 2 point for the 2 point for the 3 point for the 5 point for the 2 point for the 5 point for the 2 point for the 2 point for the 2 point for the 2 point for the .

4. If so, the plaintiffs' claims are with merit, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges, Gangseo-gu et al.

Judges Ducules

Judges Kim Jae-young

A person shall be appointed.

3) Article 61(2) of the Private School Act: Disciplinary action shall include removal, dismissal, suspension from office, reduction in salary, and reprimand.

A person shall be appointed.