Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Reappointment as principal at another school of the same foundation
Supreme Court, Nov. 29, 2018, 2015Du55219 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 교장임명보고반려처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does the proviso to Article 53(3) of the Private School Act, which limits reappointment of an elementary or secondary school principal, cover all middle and high schools installed and operated by the same school foundation, so that appointing a person who has completed eight years as principal, including one reappointment, at one of them to be principal of another breaches the reappointment limit?
Holding
Yes. The Court read ‘middle school’ in the proviso as meaning all middle and high schools installed and operated by the same school foundation, not one particular school alone. So a person who has completed eight years as principal at one of them, counting the first reappointment, is in breach of the limit in Article 53(3) when appointed principal of another school of that foundation, because the main purpose of the limit is to prevent a principal from forming a long tie with the foundation and becoming dependent on its will. The appeal was dismissed.
Points at issue, verbatim
사립학교법 제53조 제3항 단서 조항에서 교장 중임 제한 대상이 되는 ‘중등학교’의 의미 및 동일 학교법인이 설치·운영하는 중등학교 중 한 곳에서 교장으로 임명되어 1차 중임을 포함하여 8년의 교장 임기를 마친 사람이 동일 학교법인이 운영하는 다른 중등학교 교장으로 임명될 경우, 위 단서 조항에서 정한 중임 제한에 위반되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
The meaning of the term "secondary school," which is subject to the restriction on reappointment of principals under the proviso to Article 53 (3) of the Private School Act, and whether, where a person who has completed a term of eight years as principal, including the first reappointment, having been appointed as principal at one of the secondary schools established and operated by the same school corporation, is appointed as the principal of another secondary school operated by the same school corporation, this violates the restriction on reappointment prescribed in the above proviso (affirmative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
위 단서 조항에서 교장 중임 제한 대상이 되는 ‘중등학교’란, 학교법인이 설치·운영하는 특정한 중등학교 한 곳만을 의미하는 것이 아니라 동일 학교법인이 설치·운영하는 여러 중등학교 모두를 의미한다고 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, the term "secondary school" subject to the restriction on reappointment of principals under the above proviso should reasonably be understood as meaning not only one particular secondary school established and operated by a school corporation, but all of the secondary schools established and operated by the same school corporation.
Factors
- 동일 학교법인이 설치·운영하는 중등학교 중 한 곳에서 교장으로 임명되어 1차 중임을 포함하여 8년의 교장 임기를 마친 사람이
- 동일 학교법인이 운영하는 다른 중등학교 교장으로 임명될 경우
- 위 단서 조항에서 정한 중임 제한에 위반되는지 여부
Unofficial English translation
• a person who has completed a term of eight years as principal, including the first reappointment, having been appointed as principal at one of the secondary schools established and operated by the same school corporation,
• where such person is appointed as the principal of another secondary school operated by the same school corporation,
• whether this violates the restriction on reappointment prescribed in the above proviso
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
이에 따라 동일 학교법인이 설치·운영하는 중등학교 중 한 곳에서 교장으로 임명되어 1차 중임을 포함하여 8년의 교장 임기를 마친 사람이 동일 학교법인이 운영하는 다른 중등학교 교장으로 다시 임명될 경우, 사립학교법 제53조 제3항 단서에서 정한 중임 제한에 위반된다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, where a person who has completed a term of eight years as principal, including the first reappointment, having been appointed as principal at one of the secondary schools established and operated by the same school corporation, is newly appointed as the principal of another secondary school operated by the same school corporation, it must be regarded as violating the restriction on reappointment prescribed in the proviso to Article 53 (3) of the Private School Act.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a person has completed eight years as principal at a middle school of one foundation, does the proviso also bar that foundation from appointing the person principal of a private elementary school it operates?
A later decision applying or declining to apply the same reading to private elementary schools, kindergartens or universities would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 53(3) of the Private School Act would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary says the judgment sets a new standard for the term 'middle school', while the independent records no precedent that can be confirmed, so the two differ on whether the ruling creates new precedential law.
이에 따라 동일 학교법인이 설치·운영하는 중등학교 중 한 곳에서 교장으로 임명되어 1차 중임을 포함하여 8년의 교장 임기를 마친 사람이 동일 학교법인이 운영하는 다른 중등학교 교장으로 다시 임명될 경우, 사립학교법 제53조 제3항 단서에서 정한 중임 제한에 위반된다고 보아야 한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a person has completed eight years as principal at a middle school of one foundation, does the proviso also bar that foundation from appointing the person principal of a private elementary school it operates?” vs Independent “Would appointment to a secondary school operated by a different school foundation also violate the reappointment limit?”
The primary asks whether the limit also bars appointment to a private elementary school run by the same foundation, while the independent asks whether appointment by a different foundation's secondary school would violate it.
사립학교법 제53조 제3항 단서 조항에서 교장 중임 제한 대상이 되는 ‘중등학교’의 의미 및 동일 학교법인이 설치·운영하는 중등학교 중 한 곳에서 교장으로 임명되어 1차 중임을 포함하여 8년의 교장 임기를 마친 사람이 동일 학교법인이 운영하는 다른 중등학교 교장으로 임명될 경우, 위 단서 조항에서 정한 중임 제한에 위반되는지 여부(적극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 7 October 2015 (2015Nu31727), read ‘middle school’ in the proviso as covering all middle and high schools installed and operated by the same school foundation. On that reading it held that appointing the person, who had served as principal of the high school from 1 August 2006 and been reappointed for a second four-year term from 1 August 2010, as principal of the middle school from 1 August 2014 breached the reappointment limit, so it dismissed the plaintiff school foundation's claim to cancel the refusal of the appointment report.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in that reading. It reasoned that the reappointment limit was first introduced by the amendment of 29 December 2005 (Act No. 7802) to match the principal term system in public elementary and secondary schools and to guard against long ties between a principal and the foundation, and that the amendment of 27 July 2007 (Act No. 8545) narrowed the proviso to elementary and secondary schools for fairness with public kindergartens and universities. Reading the limit in that way does not stand in the way of a foundation or a principal forming and consistently carrying out a school management plan, and the Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- An appointment made by a school foundation other than the one that installed and operated the earlier school, since the Court counted only schools of one and the same foundation.
- A person whose earlier principalship did not include one reappointment and so did not reach eight years in total.
- An appointment as principal of a private kindergarten or university, since the proviso addresses elementary and secondary schools and the Court's reading concerned middle schools.
Record verification notes
Fix first whether the school left and the school joined are installed and operated by one and the same school foundation, since that is the point the reading turns on. Then set out each earlier term with its dates, 1 August 2006 and 1 August 2010 here, to see whether one reappointment was made and eight years were served in total. Remember that the Court read the limit as aimed at the tie between the principal and the foundation, so the foundation's identity, not the name of the school, decides the matter.
From the official text
Points at issue
사립학교법 제53조 제3항 단서 조항에서 교장 중임 제한 대상이 되는 ‘중등학교’의 의미 및 동일 학교법인이 설치·운영하는 중등학교 중 한 곳에서 교장으로 임명되어 1차 중임을 포함하여 8년의 교장 임기를 마친 사람이 동일 학교법인이 운영하는 다른 중등학교 교장으로 임명될 경우, 위 단서 조항에서 정한 중임 제한에 위반되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
The meaning of the term "secondary school," which is subject to the restriction on reappointment of principals under the proviso to Article 53 (3) of the Private School Act, and whether, where a person who has completed a term of eight years as principal, including the first reappointment, having been appointed as principal at one of the secondary schools established and operated by the same school corporation, is appointed as the principal of another secondary school operated by the same school corporation, this violates the restriction on reappointment prescribed in the above proviso (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
사립학교법 제53조 제3항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger