Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Refusal of senior teacher appointment as a disposition open to grievance review
Supreme Court, Sept. 12, 2024, 2022Du43405 (judgment)
Case name: 교원소청심사위원회결정취소[사립학교법인이 임기를 마친 교장의 원로교사 임용신청을 거부한 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Was a private school foundation's notice refusing, on board resolution, to appoint a principal whose term ended before retirement age as a senior teacher, against that principal's wish to continue working as a teacher under the articles of incorporation, an 'other adverse disposition contrary to his or her will' subject to grievance review under Article 9(1) of the Special Act on Enhancement of Teachers' Status and Protection of Educational Activities, and unlawful for exceeding and abusing the foundation's discretion?
Holding
It was. The Supreme Court held that the notice refusing to appoint a principal, whose term ended before retirement age, as a senior teacher, against that principal's wish to keep working as a teacher under the articles of incorporation, affected that principal's legal position and so fell within the 'other adverse disposition contrary to his or her will' subject to grievance review under Article 9(1) of the Special Act. It also accepted the finding below that the foundation's board's discussion of the person's ability to teach and health appears not to have taken place, and that no grounds for the refusal or chance to submit the materials needed for review can be seen to have been given, so the refusal exceeded and abused the foundation's discretion and was unlawful.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
을에 대하여 원로교사 임용을 거부하는 취지로 통보한 위 거부는 원로교사로 임용되어 근무할 것을 희망하는 을의 법률관계에 영향을 미치는 것으로서 교원지위법 제9조 제1항에서 소청심사의 대상으로 정한 ‘그 밖에 그 의사에 반하는 불리한 처분’에 해당하고
Unofficial English translation
The said rejection, whereby B was notified of the intention to reject his/her appointment as a senior teacher, affects the legal relationship of B, who wishes to be appointed to and serve as a senior teacher, and therefore constitutes "any other disadvantageous disposition against his/her will" provided for in Article 9 (1) of the Teacher Status Act as a subject of deliberation and review of an appeal, and
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 보조참가로 인한 부분을 포함하여 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the appeal, including those incurred by the auxiliary intervention.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
등을 종합하면, 갑 학교법인이 정년 전에 임기가 끝나는 교장인 을에 대하여 원로교사 임용을 거부하는 취지로 통보한 위 거부는
Unofficial English translation
Taking the above into comprehensive consideration, the said rejection, whereby school foundation A notified B, a principal whose term of office ends before reaching the retirement age, of the intention to reject appointment as a senior teacher,
Factors
- 헌법 제31조 제6항은 교원의 지위에 관한 기본적인 사항을 법률로 정하도록 하고 있고
- 사립학교법, 교원의 지위 향상 및 교육활동 보호를 위한 특별법(이하 ‘교원지위법’이라 한다)은 사립학교 교원을 국공립학교 교원과 동등하게 처우하고 있는 점
- 교육공무원법령이 정년 전에 임기가 끝나는 국공립학교 교장에 대하여 본인이 희망할 경우 정년까지 다시 교사로 임용되어 근무할 수 있는 원로교사 제도를 마련하고 있고
- 갑 학교법인 정관도 교육공무원법과 동일하게 규정함으로써 소속 사립학교의 교장이 정년 전에 임기가 끝나는 경우 국공립학교의 교장과 마찬가지로 본인의 희망에 따라 원로교사로 임용될 가능성을 열어 두고 있는 점
- 을에게 위 거부의 사유에 관한 근거가 제시되었거나 심사에 필요한 자료 제출 기회가 부여되었다고도 볼 수 없으므로
Unofficial English translation
• Article 31 (6) of the Constitution provides that basic matters concerning the status of teachers shall be determined by Act, and
• the Private School Act and the Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status and Protection of Educational Activities (hereinafter, the "Teacher Status Act") treat teachers at private schools on an equal footing with teachers at national and public schools,
• the Education Public Officials Act and its subordinate statutes provide for the senior teacher system, under which a principal of a national or public school whose term of office ends before reaching the retirement age may, if he/she so wishes, be newly appointed to and serve as a teacher until reaching the retirement age, and
• the articles of incorporation of school foundation A also contain the same provisions as the Education Public Officials Act, thereby leaving open the possibility that the principal of its affiliated private school whose term of office ends before reaching the retirement age may, at his/her own request, be appointed as a senior teacher in the same manner as a principal of a national or public school,
• as it cannot be regarded that the grounds for the said rejection were presented to B or that B was afforded an opportunity to submit materials necessary for the review,
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
원로교사로 임용되어 근무할 것을 희망하는 을의 법률관계에 영향을 미치는 것으로서 교원지위법 제9조 제1항에서 소청심사의 대상으로 정한 ‘그 밖에 그 의사에 반하는 불리한 처분’에 해당하고
Unofficial English translation
affects the legal relationship of B, who wishes to be appointed to and serve as a senior teacher, and therefore constitutes "any other disadvantageous disposition against his/her will" provided for in Article 9 (1) of the Teacher Status Act as a subject of deliberation and review of an appeal, and
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the board does discuss the person's ability to teach and health, what showing is needed before a refusal still counts as exceeding and abusing the foundation's discretion?
A later Supreme Court decision on whether a refusal by a national or public school to reappoint a principal as a senior teacher is likewise an adverse disposition, or on the degree of review a board must conduct, would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 29-2 of the Education Public Officials Act, to Article 9 of the Special Act, or to the foundation's articles of incorporation, and board minutes that record a discussion of ability to teach and health.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 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 5 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary reading treats the discretion abuse test as a comprehensive-consideration standard, while the independent reading treats the ruling as applying the rules to the facts. The holding mixes legal framework and case facts, so either emphasis is possible.
위 거부는 재량권을 일탈·남용하여 위법하다고 한 사례.Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading sees a new standard treating refusal of senior teacher appointment as an adverse disposition, while the independent reading could not confirm a precedent link. The holding cites no earlier case, so its relation to precedent is unclear.
원로교사로 임용되어 근무할 것을 희망하는 을의 법률관계에 영향을 미치는 것으로서 교원지위법 제9조 제1항에서 소청심사의 대상으로 정한 ‘그 밖에 그 의사에 반하는 불리한 처분’에 해당하고Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the board does discuss the person's ability to teach and health, what showing is needed before a refusal still counts as exceeding and abusing the foundation's discretion?” vs Independent “Under what substantive criteria could a school foundation lawfully refuse senior teacher appointment after properly considering teaching ability, health, and the applicant's materials?”
The primary reading asks what showing is needed for abuse of discretion even where the board did discuss ability and health, while the independent reading asks which substantive criteria would make a refusal lawful after proper review. Both concern the limits of lawful refusal but point to different gaps.
을에 대하여 원로교사 임용을 거부하는 취지로 통보한 위 거부는 원로교사로 임용되어 근무할 것을 희망하는 을의 법률관계에 영향을 미치는 것으로서 교원지위법 제9조 제1항에서 소청심사의 대상으로 정한 ‘그 밖에 그 의사에 반하는 불리한 처분’에 해당하고Raw 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 28 April 2022 (2021Nu47532), held that the foundation's notice of 27 February 2020 refusing the auxiliary intervenor's request to be appointed as a senior teacher was a disposition subject to grievance review. It found that the foundation's board, which rejected the appointment item on 26 February 2020, appears not to have discussed the intervenor's ability to teach and health, and that it could not be seen that grounds for the refusal had been presented or an opportunity given to submit the materials needed for the review, so the refusal exceeded and abused the foundation's discretion.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error on either ground. On the first, it held that the appellate conclusion that the refusal was a disposition subject to grievance review was right in substance, and that the foundation had not shown a misreading of the law on the subject-matter of such a review. On the second, it held that the court below had examined the record and had neither left necessary review undone nor overstepped the limits of free evaluation, and it unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A principal whose term ends at or after the retirement date, since the possibility of appointment as a senior teacher that the decision relied on opens only where the term ends before retirement age.
- A foundation whose articles of incorporation do not mirror Article 29-2(6) of the Education Public Officials Act and so leave no room for appointment as a senior teacher at the person's wish.
- A refusal after the board actually discussed the person's ability to teach and health, presented the grounds for the refusal and allowed the materials needed for the review to be submitted.
Record verification notes
Set the articles of incorporation against Article 29-2(6) of the Education Public Officials Act, because the expectation the Court recognised rests on a provision of the foundation's own rules that reproduces it. Then look for the teacher's certificate, for any special disqualifying reason, and for what the board minutes record about ability to teach and health, since the finding here rested on the absence of any such discussion. Finally, check whether the grounds for the refusal were given to the person and whether materials could be submitted, because that is the second limb of the finding.
From the official text
Points at issue
갑 학교법인 소속 사립학교의 교장 을이 정년 전에 임기가 끝나자 정관에서 정한 바에 따라 교사로 근무할 것을 희망하여 갑 학교법인에 자신에 대한 교원 임용을 제청하였으나 갑 학교법인이 이사회에서 심의한 후 을에게 이를 거부하는 내용의 의결 결과를 통보한 사안에서, 위 거부는 교원의 지위 향상 및 교육활동 보호를 위한 특별법 제9조 제1항에서 소청심사의 대상으로 정한 ‘그 밖에 그 의사에 반하는 불리한 처분’에 해당하고, 재량권을 일탈·남용하여 위법하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
In a case where B, the principal of a private school affiliated with school foundation A, upon the expiration of his/her term of office before reaching the retirement age, wished to serve as a teacher in accordance with the articles of incorporation and submitted a proposal to school foundation A for his/her appointment as a teacher, but school foundation A deliberated the matter at its board of directors and notified B of a resolution rejecting it, a case holding that the said rejection constitutes "any other disadvantageous disposition against his/her will" provided for in Article 9 (1) of the Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status and Protection of Educational Activities as a subject of deliberation and review of an appeal, and is unlawful as a deviation from or abuse of discretion
Summary of the holding
갑 학교법인 소속 사립학교의 교장 을이 정년 전에 임기가 끝나자 정관에서 정한 바에 따라 교사로 근무할 것을 희망하여 갑 학교법인에 자신에 대한 교원 임용을 제청하였으나 갑 학교법인이 이사회에서 심의한 후 을에게 이를 거부하는 내용의 의결 결과를 통보한 사안에서, 헌법 제31조 제6항은 교원의 지위에 관한 기본적인 사항을 법률로 정하도록 하고 있고, 사립학교법, 교원의 지위 향상 및 교육활동 보호를 위한 특별법(이하 ‘교원지위법’이라 한다)은 사립학교 교원을 국공립학교 교원과 동등하게 처우하고 있는 점, 교원지위법이 제정됨에 따라 사립학교 교원도 국공립학교 교원과 마찬가지로 소청심사를 청구할 수 있고, 결정에 불복하는 경우 행정소송을 제기할 수 있게 된 점, 교육공무원법령이 정년 전에 임기가 끝나는 국공립학교 교장에 대하여 본인이 희망할 경우 정년까지 다시 교사로 임용되어 근무할 수 있는 원로교사 제도를 마련하고 있고, 갑 학교법인 정관도 교육공무원법과 동일하게 규정함으로써 소속 사립학교의 교장이 정년 전에 임기가 끝나는 경우 국공립학교의 교장과 마찬가지로 본인의 희망에 따라 원로교사로 임용될 가능성을 열어 두고 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 갑 학교법인이 정년 전에 임기가 끝나는 교장인 을에 대하여 원로교사 임용을 거부하는 취지로 통보한 위 거부는 원로교사로 임용되어 근무할 것을 희망하는 을의 법률관계에 영향을 미치는 것으로서 교원지위법 제9조 제1항에서 소청심사의 대상으로 정한 ‘그 밖에 그 의사에 반하는 불리한 처분’에 해당하고, 갑 학교법인 이사회에서 을의 원로교사 임용 여부와 관련하여 ‘수업 담당 능력과 건강’에 관한 사항이 논의되지 않았던 것으로 보이며, 을에게 위 거부의 사유에 관한 근거가 제시되었거나 심사에 필요한 자료 제출 기회가 부여되었다고도 볼 수 없으므로, 위 거부는 재량권을 일탈·남용하여 위법하다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 보조참가로 인한 부분을 포함하여 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the appeal, including those incurred by the auxiliary intervention.
Provisions referred to
헌법 제31조 제6항, 사립학교법 제52조, 제55조, 제56조, 제57조, 교원의 지위 향상 및 교육활동 보호를 위한 특별법 제3조 제2항, 제9조 제1항, 교육공무원법 제29조의2 제6항, 제7항, 교육공무원임용령 제9조의5 제2항
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