[1] Each law applicable to fixed-term faculty members of private universities whose reappointment is refused after the Private School Act was amended by Act No. 7352 of Jan. 27, 2005, and the procedure of remedy

[2] In a case where an associate professor of a private university, who has worked for a term of six years, applied for a retrial to the Appeal Committee for Teachers under the Special Act for the Improvement of Teachers' Status with respect to a decision to refuse reappointment made on September 22, 2004, the case holding that the decision to refuse reappointment should be revoked as unlawful, even though it was rejected by the Appeal Committee for Teachers, on the ground that the aforementioned decision to refuse reappointment can only apply for a review to the "Special Committee for Appeal for Teachers" under the "Special Act for the Improvement of Teachers' Status," and cannot apply for an appeal review to the "Special Committee for Appeal for Teachers" based on the "Special Act for the Improvement of Teachers' Status," etc.

[1] Article 53-2 (8) of the Private School Act, Article 53-2 (1) and (2) of the Addenda ( January 27, 2005) of the Private School Act, Article 7 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status, Articles 2, 3 (1), and 4 of the Special Act on the Relief of Persons Disqualified from Appointment System of University Faculty / [2] Article 53-2 (8) of the Private School Act, Article 53-2 (1) and (2) of the Addenda ( January 27, 2005) of the Private School Act, Article 7 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status, Articles 2, 3 (1), and 4 of the Special Act on the Relief of Persons Disqualified from Appointment System of University Faculty Members

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Du11088 Decided June 12, 2008

Plaintiff (Law Firm Faithful et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Teachers' Appeals Review Committee (Law Firm Shin & Yang, Attorneys Kim-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Intervenor (Law Firm Shin & Yang, Attorneys Kim Jong-type et al., Counsel for the intervenor-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Nu3294 delivered on November 9, 2006

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. On December 13, 2004, the decision of retrial rendered by the defendant as to the case of revocation of revocation of revocation of refusal to re-election between the plaintiff and the defendant's supplementary intervenor on December 13, 2004 is revoked. The whole

We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the decision of review of this case.

In full view of Article 53-2(8) of the Private School Act (amended by Act No. 7352, Jan. 27, 2005; hereinafter “Revised Private School Act”); Article 53-2(1) and (2) of the Addenda thereto; Articles 2, 3(1) and 4 of the Special Act on Remedies for Deserting the Exclusion from Appointment System of University Faculty Members (hereinafter “Special Act on Remedies”); in the case of fixed-term faculty members of private universities, the amended Private School Act shall apply to teachers whose reappointment is refused after January 27, 2005, and Article 53-2(8) of the same Act (hereinafter “the amended Private School Act”); on the other hand, in the case of teachers whose reappointment is refused until the enforcement date of the amended Private School Act, a petition for review under the Special Act on the Improvement of Status of Faculty Members (hereinafter “Special Act”) shall be filed, and if they are not in office as of the date immediately before the enforcement date of the amended Private School Act, the petition for review shall be filed only by the Special Committee (hereinafter “Special Committee”).

According to the facts admitted by the court below and the records, the plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer at ○○ University operated by the intervenor joining the defendant (hereinafter "the intervenor") on March 1, 1985, and was appointed as an associate professor on October 1, 1989, and an associate professor on April 1, 1995, and on September 1, 1998, he was appointed as an associate professor for a fixed term of six years and served as an associate professor on September 1, 1998, and was notified on September 22, 2004 that he would not be reappointed from the intervenor on September 22, 2004. The plaintiff dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on October 6, 2004 (the name prior to the amendment by Act No. 7354 of Jan. 27, 2005 is the "Committee for Review of Teachers at the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development", and the plaintiff sought revocation of the decision to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is only entitled to file a petition for review of reappointment with the special committee in accordance with the Special Act on the Remedies for Remedial Measures regarding the decision to refuse reappointment made on September 22, 2004, and it cannot be filed against the Defendant based on the Teachers' Status Act, etc.

Thus, although the defendant should have dismissed the plaintiff's request for retrial on the decision of refusal of reappointment of this case which is not subject to review, the decision of retrial of this case which dismissed it should be revoked as it is unlawful.

Nevertheless, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which judged whether the decision of this case was unlawful on the premise that the decision of this case is about the legitimate subject of review. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the subject of a request for review of a petition under the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the decision of retrial of this case is revoked, and the total cost of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from participation, shall be borne by each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)