Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Quantitative reappointment rules and the research-misconduct exception
Supreme Court, Feb. 26, 2026, 2023Du47107 (judgment)
Case name: 교원소청심사위원회결정취소[재임용 심사 과정에서 소속 교원의 연구부정행위가 의심되는 업적물이 발견된 경우 이를 바탕으로 재임용 여부를 심의·결정할 수 있는지 여부가 문제 된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a university's school rules assess the academic achievement of a teacher seeking reappointment solely by a quantitative method based on the type of journal in which a work was published or accepted, may the appointing authority examine the content of the works and, after finding research misconduct, exclude them from the quantitative scoring?
Holding
In principle, the appointing authority may not. Article 53-2(7) intro of the Private School Act requires reappointment reasons to rest on objective grounds set out in advance in the school rules, so that the teacher has predictable criteria and the refusal can later be reviewed against reasonable standards; where the rules provide only a quantitative method, examining content infringes those rights and breaches the provision unless there are special circumstances. The university, which bears the responsibility of verifying research misconduct by its own teachers, may still require the teacher to submit the works in question and verify misconduct qualitatively under its own research-ethics guidelines; a work found through that verification to involve plagiarism, improper attribution of authorship, improper multiple publication or the like contains an inherent defect, so it was never within the quantitative review, and the appointing authority may exclude it from the scoring.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
소속 교원의 연구부정행위에 대한 검증 책임을 부담하는 대학의 임용권자는 재임용 심사 과정에서 연구부정행위가 의심되는 업적물이 발견된 경우, 해당 교원으로 하여금 문제 되는 업적물을 제출하게 한 후 자체 연구윤리지침이 규정하고 있는 절차에 따른 정성적 심사를 통해 업적물의 연구부정행위 해당 여부를 검증할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
The appointing authority of a university, which bears the responsibility of verifying research misconduct of its faculty member, may, where a research output suspected of research misconduct is discovered during the process of reappointment review, have the faculty member concerned submit the research output in question and verify whether the research output constitutes research misconduct through a qualitative review conducted in accordance with the procedures prescribed by its own research ethics guidelines.
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 final appeal, including those incurred by the auxiliary participation.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
다른 특별한 사정이 없는 한 사립학교법 제53조의2 제7항 전문에 위반되어 허용되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
Unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, it violates the main text of Article 53-2 (7) of the Private School Act and is not permitted.
Factors
- 오로지 해당 논문 등 업적물이 게재 또는 게재예정된 학술지의 유형 등에 따라 평가점수를 산정해 기준점수의 충족 여부를 따지는 정량적 심사방법으로 규정되어 있는 경우
- 표절·부당한 저자표시·부당한 중복게재 등의 연구부정행위가 있는 경우
- 그와 같은 업적물은 학술지에 게재가 되었거나 게재예정증명서가 발급되었다고 하더라도 내재되어 있는 하자로 인하여 애초부터 정량적 심사대상에 포함된다고 할 수 없다
- 자체 연구윤리지침이 규정하고 있는 절차에 따른 정성적 심사를 통해 업적물의 연구부정행위 해당 여부를 검증할 수 있다
- 그 결과 해당 업적물이 연구부정행위에 해당된다고 판정되면, 임용권자는 해당 업적물을 정량적 심사대상에서 제외할 수 있다
Unofficial English translation
• Where it is prescribed solely as a quantitative review method that calculates an evaluation score according to the type of journal, etc., in which the thesis or other research output has been published or is scheduled to be published, and determines whether the threshold score is met
• Where there is research misconduct such as plagiarism, improper assignment of authorship, or improper duplicate publication
• Such a research output, even if it has been published in a journal or a certificate of scheduled publication has been issued, cannot be regarded as having been included in the scope of quantitative assessment from the outset due to the inherent defect
• Its status as research misconduct may be verified through a qualitative review conducted in accordance with the procedures prescribed by its own research ethics guidelines
• Where, as a result, the research output in question is determined to constitute research misconduct, the appointing authority may exclude the research output from the scope of quantitative assessment
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2021. 2. 10. 선고 2015다254231 판결, 대법원 2025. 2. 20. 선고 2024두55877 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See, among others, Supreme Court Decision 2015Da254231 decided February 10, 2021 and Supreme Court Decision 2024Du55877 decided February 20, 2025
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2021. 2. 10. 선고 2015다254231 판결(공2021상, 585), 대법원 2025. 2. 20. 선고 2024두55877 판결(공2025상, 612)
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
소속 교원의 연구부정행위에 대한 검증 책임을 부담하는 대학의 임용권자는 재임용 심사 과정에서 연구부정행위가 의심되는 업적물이 발견된 경우
Unofficial English translation
The appointing authority of a university, which bears the responsibility of verifying research misconduct of its faculty member, where a research output suspected of research misconduct is discovered during the process of reappointment review
Open question and revisit condition
How great must the similarity between a teacher's papers be, and what must their relationship show, before submitting them together amounts to 'improper multiple publication' or conduct far beyond the range normally accepted in the field?
A later Supreme Court decision reviewing reappointment against school rules that include a qualitative element, or applying this exception to a teacher whose works were found not to involve misconduct, would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 53-2(7) of the Private School Act, or to the rules on the composition of research-ethics committees under the Act on the Promotion of Research Integrity, would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 7 (burden of proof), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 7 (Burden of proof): Primary “The party asserting” vs Independent “Not addressed”
The primary reading assigns the burden to the party asserting the claim, whereas the independent reading does not mention burden at all, since the holding states the university's verification responsibility without explicitly allocating the burden of proof.
소속 교원의 연구부정행위에 대한 검증 책임을 부담하는 대학의 임용권자는 재임용 심사 과정에서 연구부정행위가 의심되는 업적물이 발견된 경우Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How great must the similarity between a teacher's papers be, and what must their relationship show, before submitting them together amounts to 'improper multiple publication' or conduct far beyond the range normally accepted in the field?” vs Independent “What special circumstances, apart from research misconduct, could justify qualitative review despite rules prescribing only quantitative assessment?”
The primary reading asks how similar papers must be before joint submission counts as improper multiple publication, while the independent reading asks what special circumstances besides misconduct would permit qualitative review.
소속 교원의 연구부정행위에 대한 검증 책임을 부담하는 대학의 임용권자는 재임용 심사 과정에서 연구부정행위가 의심되는 업적물이 발견된 경우, 해당 교원으로 하여금 문제 되는 업적물을 제출하게 한 후 자체 연구윤리지침이 규정하고 있는 절차에 따른 정성적 심사를 통해 업적물의 연구부정행위 해당 여부를 검증할 수 있다.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 22 June 2023 (2022Nu55288), reasoned that although the university's school rules provided only a quantitative method for the academic achievement part of reappointment, what was in the end subject to review was the content of the works themselves. It held that the school foundation, appearing as auxiliary intervenor, lawfully refused reappointment because the conduct relating to the eight papers was found to be research misconduct and, once those papers were excluded, the plaintiff did not reach the required score in the research field.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that parts of the appellate reasoning were not entirely apt, since examining the content of works in the form applied was in principle not permitted under Article 53-2(7) intro of the Private School Act. It nevertheless held the conclusion sound: the appointing authority, that is the school foundation appearing as auxiliary intervenor, had lawfully verified and found the conduct relating to the plaintiff's papers to be research misconduct, excluded those papers from the quantitative scoring, and the plaintiff still fell short of the required score, so the refusal did not breach that provision. It found no error in the law on the legal position of teachers or on duplicate publication, self-plagiarism and findings of research misconduct under the Act on the Promotion of Research Integrity; the fourth ground of appeal on the composition of the main investigation committee also failed, and all the plaintiff's appeals were dismissed by unanimous agreement of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- School rules that expressly provide a qualitative method of examining the content of works and assessing their scholarly value or contribution, where the Court's prohibition on content review has no work to do.
- A case with special circumstances that allow the content of published or accepted works to be examined despite a quantitative-only rule, since the Court's prohibition applies only where no such other special circumstance exists.
- Works whose misconduct verification does not result in a finding of research misconduct, because those works remain within the quantitative scoring.
Record verification notes
Fix first which version of the school rules governed the reappointment in question, here the university's teacher personnel implementing rules as amended on 1 January 2019, and read its research-award table to see whether any qualitative element appears. Then trace the misconduct verification through the preliminary and main investigation of the university's research-ethics committee, and confirm that the works examined were the versions certified by the acceptance letters at the time of submission, not the versions revised afterwards. Set the required score against the score remaining once the works are excluded, and keep in mind that the Court spoke of the appointing authority's responsibility of verification rather than laying down a formal rule of proof between the parties.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 사립학교법 제53조의2 제7항 전문에서 재임용 심의사유를 학칙이 정하는 객관적인 사유에 근거하도록 규정한 취지 [2] 학칙에 재임용 심의사유 중 학문연구에 관한 사항이 업적물의 게재 또는 게재예정된 학술지 유형 등에 따라 평가점수를 산정해 기준점수 충족 여부를 따지는 정량적 심사방법으로 규정되어 있는 경우, 임용권자가 게재업적물 또는 게재예정업적물의 내용을 심사하여 이를 바탕으로 재임용 여부를 심의·결정할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) / 재임용 심사 과정에서 소속 교원의 연구부정행위가 의심되는 업적물이 발견된 경우, 정성적 심사를 통해 업적물의 연구부정행위 해당 여부를 검증할 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 그 결과 연구부정행위에 해당하는 경우, 임용권자는 해당 업적물을 정량적 심사대상에서 제외할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The intent of the provision in the main text of Article 53-2 (7) of the Private School Act requiring that the grounds for deliberation on reappointment be based on objective grounds prescribed by the school rules [2] Whether, where the school rules provide that, among the grounds for deliberation on reappointment, matters concerning academic research shall be assessed by a quantitative review method that calculates an evaluation score according to the type of journal in which the research output has been published or is scheduled to be published, etc., and determines whether a threshold score is met, the appointing authority may review the content of the published research output or the research output scheduled to be published and, on that basis, deliberate on and decide whether to reappoint (in principle, negative) / Whether, where a research output suspected of research misconduct of a faculty member belonging to the university is discovered during the process of reappointment review, its status as research misconduct may be verified through a qualitative review (affirmative), and, where, as a result, it constitutes research misconduct, whether the appointing authority may exclude the research output in question from the scope of quantitative assessment (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 사립학교법 제53조의2 제7항 전문에서 재임용 심의사유를 학칙이 정하는 객관적인 사유에 근거하도록 규정한 취지는, 대학교원으로서의 재임용 자격 내지 적격성의 유무가 임용권자의 자의가 아니라 ‘학생교육에 관한 사항, 학문연구에 관한 사항, 학생지도에 관한 사항’에 관한 평가 등 객관적인 사유에 의하여 심의되어야 할 뿐만 아니라, 해당 교원에게 사전에 심사방법의 예측가능성을 제공하고 사후에는 재임용거부결정이 합리적인 기준에 의하여 공정하게 이루어졌는지를 심사할 수 있도록 재임용 심사기준이 사전에 객관적인 규정으로 마련되어 있어야 함을 요구하는 것이다. [2] 학칙에 재임용 심의사유 중 학문연구에 관한 사항이 업적물의 내용을 심사하여 학술적 가치나 학술적 공헌도(기여도)를 평가하는 정성적 심사방법이 아니라, 오로지 해당 논문 등 업적물이 게재 또는 게재예정된 학술지의 유형 등에 따라 평가점수를 산정해 기준점수의 충족 여부를 따지는 정량적 심사방법으로 규정되어 있는 경우, 임용권자가 게재업적물 또는 게재예정업적물의 내용을 심사하여 이를 바탕으로 재임용 여부를 심의·결정하는 것은 해당 교원의 재임용 심사기준에 관한 사전 예측가능성과 공정한 심사를 요구할 권리를 침해하는 것이므로, 다른 특별한 사정이 없는 한 사립학교법 제53조의2 제7항 전문에 위반되어 허용되지 않는다. 다만 게재업적물 또는 게재예정업적물에 표절·부당한 저자표시·부당한 중복게재 등의 연구부정행위가 있는 경우, 그와 같은 업적물은 학술지에 게재가 되었거나 게재예정증명서가 발급되었다고 하더라도 내재되어 있는 하자로 인하여 애초부터 정량적 심사대상에 포함된다고 할 수 없다. 따라서 학칙에 명시적으로 학문연구에 관한 사항에서 업적물에 대한 연구부정행위 해당 여부를 정성적으로 심사할 수 있다는 취지의 규정이 없다고 하더라도, 소속 교원의 연구부정행위에 대한 검증 책임을 부담하는 대학의 임용권자는 재임용 심사 과정에서 연구부정행위가 의심되는 업적물이 발견된 경우, 해당 교원으로 하여금 문제 되는 업적물을 제출하게 한 후 자체 연구윤리지침이 규정하고 있는 절차에 따른 정성적 심사를 통해 업적물의 연구부정행위 해당 여부를 검증할 수 있다. 그 결과 해당 업적물이 연구부정행위에 해당된다고 판정되면, 임용권자는 해당 업적물을 정량적 심사대상에서 제외할 수 있다.
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 final appeal, including those incurred by the auxiliary participation.
Provisions referred to
[1] 사립학교법 제53조의2 제7항 / [2] 사립학교법 제53조의2 제7항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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