[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff (Attorney-in-fact: Homin Law Firm, Attorneys Choi Gyu-il and 3 others)
[Defendant, Appellee] Teachers' Appeals Review Committee (교원소청심사위원회)
[Intervenor for Defendant] ○○ Educational Foundation (Attorney-in-fact: Taesung Law Firm (LLC), Attorneys Lee Woo-ri and 2 others)
[Judgment Below] Daejeon High Court Decision 2021Nu10468, decided July 8, 2022
[Order]
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal (including the supplementary brief on grounds of appeal submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting grounds of appeal, to the extent it supplements the grounds of appeal) are examined as follows.
1. Outline of the case
According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the following facts may be established.
A. While working as a professor in the Department of □□□ at the △△△ College of ○○ University (hereinafter "the school in this case"), operated by the Intervenor for Defendant, the Plaintiff was dismissed by the President of the school in this case on February 1, 2019 (hereinafter "the dismissal disposition in this case") on the grounds of misconduct including improper admission of a celebrity and improper conferral of a degree within the school.
B. The Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the dismissal disposition in this case, filed a petition for review with the Defendant on March 5, 2019.
C. On May 22, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff's petition for review on the ground that the dismissal disposition in this case was neither unlawful nor unjust (hereinafter "the decision in this case").
D. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 4, 2019, seeking revocation of the decision in this case.
E. Meanwhile, on January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff was sentenced by the Seoul Central District Court to 10 months' imprisonment with a 2-year suspension of execution for obstruction of business related to the grounds for disciplinary action underlying the dismissal disposition in this case, and that judgment became final on April 23, 2019 (hereinafter "the related criminal judgment").
2. Judgment of the court below
The court below held that, since the related criminal judgment against the Plaintiff became final on April 23, 2019, resulting in the Plaintiff's automatic retirement from the school in this case, it would be impossible for the Plaintiff to recover the status of a teacher at the school in this case even if the decision in this case were revoked; therefore, there was no legal interest in seeking revocation of the decision in this case through the instant lawsuit. Accordingly, the court below revoked the first instance judgment and dismissed the instant lawsuit.
3. Judgment of the Supreme Court
A. Considering comprehensively the content, purpose, and intent of the provisions of the Act on the Improvement of Educational Officials' Status and the Protection of Their Rights (교원의 지위 향상 및 교육활동 보호를 위한 특별법, hereinafter "the Teachers' Status Act") regarding the teachers' appeals review system, even if a private school teacher who filed a petition for review to contest the effect of a dismissal disposition is unable to recover the status of a teacher due to the occurrence of a cause for automatic retirement, such as the finalization of a criminal judgment, during the pendency of such dispute, if the teacher would be entitled to claim payment of salary for the period from the date of the dismissal disposition to the date of occurrence of the cause for automatic retirement in the event the dismissal disposition is revoked or modified, then the teacher should be deemed to have a legal interest in seeking revocation of the decision of the Teachers' Appeals Review Committee dismissing the petition for review. The specific reasons are as follows.
1) The Teachers' Status Act establishes a review system for private school teachers in the same manner as for teachers at national and public schools. In light of the relevant provisions (Article 1, Article 9(1), Article 10, Article 10-3, etc.) of the former Teachers' Status Act (before the amendment by Act No. 17952 of March 23, 2021) concerning the teachers' appeals review system, the purpose and intent of the teachers' appeals review system is to uniformly regulate the procedures for contesting adverse dispositions, such as disciplinary actions, taken against private school teachers and against national and public school teachers, thereby ensuring the effective exercise of the State's supervisory authority over school foundations, and to allow private school teachers to file administrative litigation, thereby guaranteeing the status security and promoting the status improvement of private school teachers at least to a level corresponding to the remedial procedures available to national and public school teachers. In order to secure such status security, it is necessary, through the teachers' appeals review system, to restore the status or interests of private school teachers that were deprived of or infringed upon by adverse dispositions, such as disciplinary actions, taken by school foundations. Therefore, even if it has become impossible for a private school teacher to be reinstated to the original position due to the occurrence of a cause for automatic retirement, if a legal disadvantage remains as a result of the disciplinary disposition, it is consistent with the purpose and intent of the teachers' appeals review system to allow the teacher, through administrative litigation contesting the Defendant's decision dismissing the petition for review, to have the unlawfulness of the disciplinary disposition confirmed so as to remove such disadvantage.
2) Since a private school teacher acquires the right to claim salary from the date of the dismissal disposition until the termination of the appointment relationship due to the occurrence of a cause for automatic retirement, in the event the dismissal disposition has no effect, whether the dismissal disposition is void is directly linked to the existence of the right to claim salary payment. If a private school teacher obtains a judgment revoking the decision dismissing the petition for review in administrative litigation, the effect of the dismissal disposition may be extinguished by virtue of the binding force of such revocation judgment. Therefore, where a private school teacher is affected not only in the status of teacher due to the dismissal disposition but also in the right or interest to receive salary premised on such status, the teacher should be deemed to have a legal interest in maintaining the administrative litigation seeking revocation of the decision dismissing the petition for review.
3) The fact that a civil action may be filed to claim payment of an amount equivalent to salary for the period of dismissal does not constitute a ground for denying the interest in the lawsuit.
The Teachers' Status Act appears to have established the teachers' appeals review system in order to avoid the complexity, delay, and excessive costs of litigation procedures under the ordinary means of relief through civil litigation, and to promote prompt, simple, and economical relief of rights. Therefore, while a private school teacher may of course file a civil action to receive unpaid salary for the period of dismissal, it is separately necessary to enable the teacher to substantially recover the loss equivalent to such salary by having the unlawfulness of the dismissal confirmed through the teachers' appeals review system and administrative litigation.
4) Also from the standpoint of procedural economy, where a private school teacher has utilized the administrative remedial procedure of the teachers' appeals review system in order to obtain prompt relief, it is undesirable to exclude the petitioner from the remedial and dispute-resolution procedures on the ground that the appointment relationship terminated in the interim, thereby rendering futile all the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, the fact-finding and review conducted by the Teachers' Appeals Review Committee, and the court's deliberations up to that point. Therefore, even if reinstatement to the original position is impossible, if there remains a possibility that the private school teacher may receive salary for the period of dismissal, it is appropriate to recognize the interest in the lawsuit for the prompt and efficient resolution of the dispute.
5) The Supreme Court has recognized the interest in a lawsuit by regarding the interest in receiving salary or wages for the period of dismissal or discharge as a legal interest, even where reinstatement to the original position has become impossible during the pendency of administrative litigation, in the case of national and public school teachers (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du13487, decided January 30, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 2011Du5001, decided February 23, 2012, etc.) or workers (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2019Du52386, decided February 20, 2020). Since a private school teacher may be regarded as holding a status equivalent to that of an educational public official whose status is guaranteed, it is necessary, for reasons of equity and balance, to treat the private school teacher's case similarly to that of national and public school teachers and workers when determining the interest in a lawsuit.
B. Examining the facts established above in light of the foregoing legal principles, even though the Plaintiff's automatic retirement occurred on April 23, 2019, after the Plaintiff had filed the petition for review, making reinstatement to the original position impossible, the Plaintiff has an interest in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the decision in this case.
Nevertheless, the court below, on the contrary, determined that the Plaintiff had no interest in the lawsuit on the ground that it was impossible for the Plaintiff to recover the previous status due to the Plaintiff's automatic retirement, and thereby dismissed the instant lawsuit. This determination by the court below contains an error that misunderstood the legal principles concerning the interest in a lawsuit, thereby affecting the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further hearing and determination, and it is so decided as per the Order by the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in the decision.
Justice Kim Seon-su (Presiding Justice), Roh Tae-ak, Oh Kyung-mi (Justice in Charge), Seo Kyung-hwan