1. Case Summary
The client is a professor who, in accordance with the law, is serving as an duputy professor after previously working as an assistant professor at one of Korea's four Institutes of Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as "School A"), which was established as a national research institution under law. When the president of School A previously issued a disposition refusing the client's appointment as a tenured professor, the client filed a claim with the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee, and the committee rendered a cancellation decision (hereinafter "prior cancellation decision") based on procedural and substantive defects in the refusal. Despite this prior cancellation decision, School A continued to reappoint the client on a periodic basis but did not appoint the client as a tenured professor.
School A later sent the client an email stating that the client would be reappointed for another two years, but also notified the client that it was rejecting the client's tenure appointment in the first tenure review (hereinafter, the part of the notification rejecting the tenure appointment is referred to as "the refusal disposition"). The client filed a new appeal with the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee seeking the cancellation of the refusal disposition against the president of School A. However, the committee dismissed the claim on the grounds that, according to School A's personnel guidelines, professors who are not approved in the first tenure review may be granted a second review period, and thus, the refusal disposition did not constitute an unfavorable disposition that directly altered the professor's status. The client subsequently filed an administrative lawsuit challenging the legality of the committee's dismissal.
2. Our Arguments and Role
In the administrative lawsuit, we, representing the client, sought to demonstrate the illegality of the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee’s dismissal. We cited Supreme Court precedents regarding recognizability and predictability from the standpoint of the subject of an administrative action, as well as precedents concerning the application rights of professors at national and public universities. We emphasized that the refusal disposition communicated via email was not a mere notification but rather an unfavorable disposition that, from the client's standpoint considering recognizability and predictability, imposed substantial disadvantages on the professor's status. Taking into account the intent of the prior cancellation decision, we argued that the client had a right to a fair review and disposition regardless of whether a second tenure review opportunity might be granted, and thus had a legitimate application right based on legal principles.
3. Judgment
a. Final Judgment of Administrative Court
The Seoul Administrative Court ruled that, regardless of whether the president of School A had the authority under relevant regulations to grant a second review period to a professor who failed the first tenure review, the refusal of the tenure appointment itself clearly constituted an "unfavorable disposition contrary to the will of the teacher" under Article 7(1) of the Act on the Status of Teachers and Others, which is subject to appeal. The court found it reasonable to conclude that the client had the right to request a review based on reasonable criteria and fair evaluation by the president of School A regarding the tenure appointment. As such, the committee's decision to dismiss the appeal by deeming the refusal disposition not to be an "unfavorable disposition" was unlawful, and the court rendered a judgment to cancel that decision.
b. Retrial by the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee
As the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee did not appeal the Seoul Administrative Court's decision to cancel the dismissal, the judgment became final. In accordance with the confirmed decision recognizing the refusal disposition as subject to appeal, the committee proceeded with a retrial of the initial appeal.
In the retrial, we continued to represent the client, arguing that School A violated its duty to take follow-up action in accordance with the binding effect of the prior cancellation decision under the Administrative Appeals Act, and that, despite the prior decision, School A still failed to establish specific criteria for tenure appointment review. We pointed out multiple procedural and substantive flaws in the refusal disposition, ultimately leading the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee to accept these arguments and issue a decision to cancel the refusal disposition.
4. Significance of the Judgment
According to a recent Constitutional Court decision, Institutes of Science and Technology, which are public organizations established under law, cannot file administrative lawsuits against decisions by the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee (Constitutional Court en banc decision 2019HunBa117, dated October 27, 2022). Accordingly, the committee's decision to cancel the refusal disposition became final without challenge, and the tenure appointment refusal by School A was retroactively nullified. As a result, School A is now obligated, under Article 49(2) of the Administrative Appeals Act and Article 10(3) of the Act on the Status of Teachers and Others, to promptly establish fair tenure appointment review criteria and take necessary appointment actions for the client, and to report the results to the committee.
This case serves as a warning against improper treatment of professors by Institutes of Science and Technology — although not national or public universities in the strict sense — which, as public organizations established by law, hold a strong public-interest character. The case also aligns with the legislative intent of the Act on the Status of Teachers and Others, which aims to robustly protect the status of teachers, and with recent trends in case law.
