[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee] Educational Foundation Seonghan Hagwon (성한학원) and 1 other, Defendants' Attorney Kang Jang-hwan
[Judgment Below]
Seoul High Court, Judgment of December 9, 1992, Case No. 91Na55812
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal (including those set forth in the supplementary brief on grounds of appeal) are examined.
1. As between the Plaintiff and Defendant Seokyeong University, the court below granted the Plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation that the dismissal disposition rendered against the Plaintiff by the President of Kukje College (국제대학) on August 23, 1985 was void. Further, with respect to the Plaintiff's claim for salary, etc., the court below examined the facts alleged by the Plaintiff—namely, that even though the Plaintiff's term of appointment as an associate professor of Kukje College had expired, (i) since the dismissal disposition in this case is void, the Plaintiff's status as an associate professor continues as before, notwithstanding the expiration of the term of appointment, unless there exists a ground for dismissal as prescribed under the Private School Act (사립학교법); (ii) in the academic community, there exists a practice whereby, absent any special disqualifying cause, a professor is automatically reappointed upon expiration of the term of appointment; (iii) Defendant Seonghan Hagwon, by paying the Plaintiff's salary up to April 16, 1987, which was after the expiration of the term of appointment, impliedly recognized the Plaintiff's status as an associate professor, and moreover, since it did not internally classify the Plaintiff as a professor who failed to be reappointed, it had impliedly already reappointed the Plaintiff, such that the Plaintiff remains an associate professor of Kukje College; and (iv) even if that were not the case, since the above dismissal disposition by Myongji Hagwon (명지학원) was unlawful and constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff, the Defendants comprehensively succeeded to the liability for damages therefor, and accordingly, the Plaintiff sought, jointly and severally, from Defendant Seonghan Hagwon, which took over and operated Kukje College as of April 17, 1987 (the day after the Plaintiff last received salary), and from Defendant Seokyeong University, which has since operated Kukje College, payment of salary or damages equivalent to salary from that date until reinstatement is permitted—and rendered its judgment as follows.
First,
In the case of a teacher appointed for a fixed term, upon expiration of the term the teacher's status is definitively lost. The provisions of the Private School Act concerning the protection of the status of teachers, such as restrictions on dismissal, are not provisions that prohibit the termination of the appointment relationship due to the expiration of the term for a teacher employed for a fixed term in accordance with the Act. Therefore, even if a dismissal disposition rendered prior to the expiration of the term of appointment is void, this does not mean that the teacher's status is maintained beyond the term of appointment without a new appointment.
Second, there is no evidence sufficient to recognize the existence of a practice of automatic reappointment as alleged by the Plaintiff. Moreover, in light of the series of events triggered by the Plaintiff's conduct, even if the dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff is void, the Plaintiff, as a university professor subject to strict moral standards, cannot be exempted from moral responsibility for the above events, and it is therefore difficult to infer that Myongji Hagwon would have reappointed the Plaintiff as an associate professor of Kukje College simultaneously with the expiration of the above term.
Third, the facts alleged above alone are insufficient to conclude that Myongji Hagwon or Defendant Seonghan Hagwon, etc. impliedly recognized the Plaintiff's status as an associate professor or impliedly reappointed the Plaintiff, and thus the Plaintiff's above claim for salary premised on the maintenance of the Plaintiff's status as an associate professor is without merit.
Fourth, the above dismissal disposition rendered by Myongji Hagwon against the Plaintiff was part of a legitimate exercise of administrative authority, and even if such disposition exceeded the bounds of discretion and is therefore void, this cannot be deemed to constitute a tort against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's above claim seeking to hold the Defendants liable for damages must also be rejected without further examination.
2. In light of the evidence adopted and rejected by the court below as shown in the record, the purport of the relevant provisions including Article 53-2, Paragraph 3 of the Private School Act concerning the appointment and dismissal of teachers who are not the head of the school, and the legal principle set forth in this Court's Judgment of June 25, 1991, Case No. 91Da1134, which held that the status relationship of a university teacher is naturally terminated upon expiration of the term of appointment, the above determination by the court below can be upheld, and there is no illegality therein such as misapprehension of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, insufficient reasoning, or misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the argument. This Court's Judgment of July 23, 1991, Case No. 91Da12820, cited in the argument, involves facts different from those of this case and therefore does not constitute an appropriate precedent. The argument is without merit.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. The opinions of the participating Justices being unanimous, it is so ordered as set forth in the Order.
Justice Park Man-ho (Presiding Justice), Park Woo-dong, Kim Sang-won (Justice in Charge), Yoon Young-cheol