사학분쟁조정위원회의 학교법인 정상화에 관한 법리

김명연(Kim, Myoung-Youn) 한국비교공법학회 2017 공법학연구 Vol.18 No.2

사학분쟁조정위원회는 사회민주화 과정에서 퇴출되었던 사학비리운영자를 예외 없이 복귀시켰다. 사학분쟁조정위원회가 사회의 논란 속에 비리재단을 복귀시킨 상지대 정상화 결정이 대법원 이사선임처분 취소판결에 의하여 취소되었다. 교육부는 이 판결이 다른 사립학교에 미치는 영향을 우려하여 이를 개방이사 선임과 관련한 절차상 하자로 의미를 축소하고 있다. 그리고 종래의 정상화 심의원칙에 따라 상지대를 신속하게 재정상화하려고 하고 있다. 그러나 이 판결로 인한 재정상화 심의에서는 개방이사 선임주체, 개방이사제도와 관련한 임시이사의 권한의 한계, 개방이사 선임을 예정하지 않은 정상화 심의원칙의 변경 등 다양한 법적 쟁점이 있다. 또한 상지대 정상화 결정 이후 헌법재판소와 대법원에 의하여 종래 정상화 심의원칙의 핵심적 법리를 모두 부정하는 새로운 정상화법리가 형성되었다. 이 논문에서는 상지대 재정상화 심의와 관련하여 이사선임처분 취소판결의 의의와 내용, 정상화의 요건과 재정상화 심의의결의 적법성, 새로운 정상화법리의 형성과 정상화 심의원칙의 변경, 개방이사 선임과 관련한 법적 문제, 종전이사의 법적 지위와 이사추천권 부여의 적격성 심사 등의 법적 쟁점을 분석하고 이에 관한 법리를 제시하고 있다. 2017년 4월 사학분쟁조정위원회가 정상화한 62개 사립학교 중 56개 학교에 상지대와 같이 개방이사를 선임하지 않은 위법한 정상화 결정이 이루어졌다. 상지대 재정상화 관련한 법적 쟁점과 법리는 이들 학교의 재정상화와 정상화 심의가 예정된 적지 않은 사립학교에도 타당하게 적용될 수 있다. 사학비리의 근절은 교육의 본질과 관련된 근본문제이며, 교육의 정상화를 위한 선결과제이다. 사학분쟁조정위원회가 비리사학운영자를 학교운영에서 배제하여 사학의 비정상화의 정상화에 대한 법적·사회적 책무를 다할 것을 기대한다. Private School Dispute Resolution Committee(PSDR) brings back private school interested groups without any exception, who were exiled through the process on social democracy movement into schools. Supreme Court, eventually, revoked this normalization of school made by PSDR, which was revocation judgement of disposition of directors’ appointment. The Ministry of Education intentionally distorts the Supreme Court’s decision by arguing that the decision just exposes procedural errors on appointing public director. It is because the Ministry of Education concerns about uncertain impacts on the other private schools by the decision. As the result, the Ministry of Education is trying to renormalize Sangji University based on the precedent deliberation principles of normalization. However, the Supreme Court’s decision exposes plenty of legal issues such as who appoints public directors, temporary director’s authority and limit about public directors, and deliberation principles of normalization which does not notify employment of public directors in advance on the way of the normalization. This paper analyzes legal issues and suggests legal principles associated with these such as the meaning and significance of revocation judgement of directors’ appointment about Sangji University’s normalization, requirements for the normalization and legality of deliberation principles of normalization, development of modified legal principles for normalization, legal issue on employing public director, and then previous director’s legal status and its eligibility for right of recommending other directors. At April, 2017, illegal normalization decision, which did not appointment of public director as Sangji University did, were passed off to 56 private schools among 62 schools that PSDR normalized. Therefore, the legal issues and principles associated with Sangji University’s renormalization would be lawfully applied to other private schools appointed deliberation of normalization or renormalization. Extermination of private schools’ corruption is fundamental and essential issues about education. Furthermore, it must be done as the first priority for normalizing education. Private School Dispute Resolution Committee should fulfill its legal and social responsibility to eradicate the private schools’ corruption.

사학분쟁조정위원회의 법적 지위와 학교법인의 정상화

김명연 전남대학교 법학연구소 2011 법학논총 Vol.31 No.1

사분위는 그 명칭에도 불구하고 정부차원에서 입법이 추진되었던 사학분쟁조정위원회와는 그 권한과 법적 지위를 달리한다. 그 동안 정부가 입법을 추진하였거나 운영한 바 있는 사학분쟁조정위원회는 대체적 분쟁해결기관인 준사법적 성격의 독립행정위원회와 관할청 또는 교과부장관의 자문기관의 두 가지 유형으로 구별된다. 그러나 현재의 사분위는 설치목적이나 심의사항에 있어서는 자문기관의 유형과 유사하지만 의결기관이며 또한 대체적 분쟁해결기관인 독립행정행위원회와도 구별되는 이형(異形)적 특성을 갖는다. 사분위의 법적 지위는 특히 임시이사가 선임된 학교법인의 정이사 선임에 관한 심의기준과 직접적인 관련이 있다. 사분위는 그 법적 지위를 준사법기관적 대체적 분쟁해결기관으로 이해하면서도 심의결과는 조정의 자발성의 원칙과 부합되지 않는 강제조정결정이라고 한다. 그리고 입시부정 또는 교비 횡령 등을 행한 건학주체를 학교법인의 운영에서 완전히 배제시킬 것인가 또는 건학주체의 정체성과 학교법인의 자주성을 존중하여 학교법인 운영권을 보장해 줄 것인지가 핵심논점이라는 전제 하에 이해당사자간 조정의 성립 여부와는 관계없이 종전이사들에게 학교경영권을 보장하고 있다. 사분위는 이를 정당화하기 위하여 판결의 효력이 없는 보충의견을 상지대 판결로 왜곡하고 상지대 판결의 적용상의 한계를 고려하지 않을 뿐만 아니라 사회통념과 사회상규상 용인될 수 없는 윤리기준을 적용하고 있다. 현행 사립학교법 하에서 상지대 판결의 취지를 존중하더라도 종전이사에게 인정 가능한 최대한의 권리는 학교법인의 정체성을 전달하기 위한 의견진술권 정도이다. 사분위가 이러한 심의기준과 정상화 원칙을 적용할 수 있는 것은 사립학교법상 학교법인의 정상화와 관련한 규정의 현저한 입법적 불비도 원인이 되고 있다. 학교법인의 정체성에 부합하면서도 교육기본법상 교육의 이념에 따라 학교의 경영능력과 학교의 운영에 걸 맞는 인격성·도덕성·신뢰성을 가진 자가 정이사로 선임될 수 있도록 학교법인 정상화 심의의 기준, 정이사의 자격요건 등을 법률로서 규정할 필요가있다. 또한 ‘사학분쟁조정위원회’의 명칭은 법적 지위에 부합하지 않으므로 ‘사립학교 정상화심의위원회’ 정도로 변경하는 것이 타당하다. 그리고 권력분립의 원칙과 행정조직법상 조직구성원리에 맞지 않는 사분위의 기관구성방법과 심의결과의 구속력에 관한 규정을 개정하여 관할청의 자문기구로 하는 것이 타당하며, 임시이사가 선임된 학교법인의 정상화에 있어 정이사의 선임과 개방이사의 관계가 불명확하여 다툼의 여지가 있으므로 개방이사제도의 취지를 고려하여 관할청이 개방이사를 제외한 정이사를 선임하도록 명확하게 규정할 필요가 있다. 한편 사분위 위원의 자격요건을 완화하고 주관적 요건을 법정하여 다양한 시각, 특히 교육의 관점에서 공정한 심의가 이루어질 수 있도록 하여야 하며, 보다 공정하고 투명한 심의절차를 제도화하여 관련 이해당사자가 사분위의 심의 및 관할청의 임시이사제도의 운영을 충분히 신뢰할 수 있도록 하여야 한다. The government has had a long history of discussing and attempting to introduce an organization that will resolve private school disputes. The PSDR, despite its name, is different from a private school dispute resolution committee, which the government attempted to create, in terms of its rights and legal status. The PSDR, which the government tried to legislate its creation, has taken largely two forms, one as an independent administrative committee and the other as an advisory body to the minister of Education, Science and Technology,each performing different functions depending on its legal status. Even though the PSDR is similar to an advisory committee as for the mission and area of its jurisdiction, it is not purely an advisory body but a decision making agency. Furthermore, it takes a different form from an independent administrative committee, which is still another a dispute resolution agency. The legal status of the PSDR is directly related to the nomination of board trustees from a temporary status to a permanent one at private schools. The PSDR is an administrative agency which strives for fairness and propriety in the Ministry’s execution of its supervisory functions. As a result, it sets different criteria from those of the other dispute resolution agency. The PSDR understands its legal status as one that is a quasi-executive agency. However, its decisions are binding even though they are not in conformity with the non-binding principle. Whether the parties involved in irregularity in student admission or embezzlement of tuition funds should be totally excluded from running the school or they should be given the right to operate the school giving a consideration to the school’s right to autonomy is an issue in debate. Nevertheless, the PSDR still gives former trustees the right to run a school regardless of whether a resolution of disputes between parties has been reached or not. In order to justify its stance, the PSDR incorrectly applied and misrepresented the Sangji University case, which had no binding effect on its decisions, and did not consider the extent and the applicability of the case to its situation. Furthermore, it applies moral standards that are unacceptable to general consensus in the society and social mores. In light of the private school regulations, even if we adhere to the intent of the Sangji University decision, the magnitude of the right to be given to a former trustee should be limited to the right to make a testimony as to the school’s legitimacy. The principle of normalization of the PSDR gives itself the legitimacy under the slogan of autonomy and consequently ensures the parties of an ongoing corruption-ridden group and gives ‘the private schools’ constituents’ who are wrong-doers a permanency. The fact that the PSDR can apply such standards and normalization principle is attributable to a lack of regulations governing private educational institutions’ normalization. It is crucial that persons with high ethical, moral standards, and credibility, who are capable of running the school within the spirit of educational laws and school mission, should be nominated as permanent trustees. As such, a normalization of private institutions and their standards, and qualifications of trustees should be legislated into law. In addition, the name, PSDR does not accurately reflect the legal status of the agency. Therefore, it should be renamed as “the Private School Normalization Review Committee/Agency.” Also, the PSDR has an organizational structure that is not in accordance with the principle of organization per the administrative law. Therefore, the laws regulating the organizational structure and the binding power of its decisions should be amended, and the committee/agency should function as an advisory body to the ministry under whose jurisdiction it functions. Inasmuch as there is a possibility of temporary trustees raising an objection in the process of nominating per...

전선 : 사학분쟁조정위원회의 위헌성과 그 개편방향

임재홍 ( Chae Hong Lim ) 민주주의법학연구회 2011 민주법학 Vol.0 No.46

이 글은 크게 두 부분으로 구성되어 있다. 하나는 현행 사립학교법상 사학분쟁조정위원회의 위헌성을 검토하는 작업이고(2), 다른 하나는 사학분쟁의 조정 특히 임시이사의 임면과 임시이사 파견 사립학교의 정상화 즉 정이사 선임의 권한을 누가 행사할 수 있도록 할 것인지의 문제로서 행정형 시스템과 사법형 시스템을 소개하는 부분이다(3). 현행 사립학교법은 학교법인에 대한 통제방법으로 행정형 방식을 채택하고 있다. 그럼에도 임시이사의 임면과 임시이사 파견 사립학교의 정이사 선임권은 사학분쟁조정위원회라는 별도의 합의제 의결기관에 권한을 부여하고 있다. 그러나 사학분쟁조정위원회는 공법이나 사회법의 논리를 등한시하고 민사법의 논리를 들어 정이사 선임원칙을 정하고 이에 따라 정이사를 선임함으로써 헌법이 예정하고 있는 학교의 공공성원리에 정면으로 반하는 위헌적인 결론을 내고 있다. 따라서 위헌적인 사분위의 결정을 무효화하고 사립학교법 개정을 위한 재논의가 필요하다. 이 글에서는 사법형보다는 관할청인 교육과학기술부가 권한을 갖는 행정형 시스템을 기본 축으로 하되 의결기구인 사분위를 폐지하고, 자문기구로서 학교법인이사선임위원회를 신설할 것을 내용으로 하는 개선안을 제시하고 있다. The revised Private School Act of 2007 introduced the Private School Dispute Resolution Committee(PSDRC). The legal status of the PSDRC appointed by the recommendation of the Parliament, President and the Supreme Court, is an independent administrative committee, a decision making agency. The task of the PSDRC is the nomination of board trustees from a temporary status to a permanent one at private schools. In Korea, if a board trustees of a private school fails to fill a vacancy in the directorate, and therefore, is deemed incapable of running the school properly, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology can dispatch Government nominated (Temporary) trustees to form a temporary board trustees and run the school. For the normative normalization it is important that the man who is willing to nurture sound citizens and realizes the ideology of hongikingan (meaning "broadly benefiting all-mankind") should become the new director of the school foundation. But the PSDRC set Criteria which gives former trustees the right to run a school regardless of whether a resolution of disputes between parties has been reached or not. In order to justify its stance, the PSDRC wrongly applied and distorted the Sangji University case(2006Da19504, May 17, 2007). The fact that the PSDRC could apply such standards and normalization principle is attributable to a lack of regulations governing private school board trustees` normalization. So the revision of the Private School Act to improve the public character of the private school, is necessary. Persons with high ethical standards and credibility, who are capable of running the school within the spirit of educational laws and school missions, should be nominated as permanent trustees. As such, a normalization of private institutions and the standards thereof, and qualifications of trustees should be legislated into the Private School Act as specifically as possible. Now we must re-start education reform to promote the basic rights of students, the independence of the schools and university autonomy.

임시이사 선임 학교법인의 정상화 사례 분석과 시사점

주영달 ( Ju Young Dal ) 대한교육법학회 2018 敎育 法學 硏究 Vol.30 No.1

공교육에서 비중이 큰 사학에서 부정과 분쟁이 발생하여 학교법인과 사립학교가 정상적으로 운영되지 못하는 경우에는 국가가 관여하여 임시이사를 선임하여 정상화를 추진하게 된다. 그런데 정이사 선임이라는 정상화가 이루어지기도 어렵고 정상화가 이루어진 이후에도 지속적으로 사학에 파행이 발생하는 경우가 많이 있다. 이처럼 신속하고 효과적인 정상화가 이루어지지 않는 원인을 파악함으로써 정상화 제도 개선에 대한 시사점을 얻기 위하여 대학을 중심으로 사학의 분쟁이나 부정이 발생하여 정상화 과정을 거쳤던 학교법인의 사례를 분석하여 보았다. 사학분쟁조정위원회의 자료집을 기초로 분쟁이 심각하거나 장기간 지속되었던 학교법인, 분쟁이 재발하였던 학교법인, 원만한 정상화를 이루었던 학교법인을 선정한 다음 각 대학에 대한 언론 보도를 분석하였다. 임시 이사가 선임된 학교법인의 사례를 분석한 결과 정상화 과정에서의 임원취임승인취소제도, 정상화 시기 판단과 그 주체, 정상화 방법 또는 정상화 제도, 누구의 의사를 반영하여 누구를 정이사로 선임할 것인가의 정상화 내용 등에 관한 문제가 정상화에서 주된 연구과제임이 확인되었다. Today's private schools are incorporated into the public education system and function as public education institutions, and the proportion of public education is very high. Therefore, if the school foundation and the private school can not operate properly due to the negligence and disputes in the history of the school, the state is involved and appoints temporary directors to promote normalization. However, normalization of the appointment is difficult to achieve, and even after the normalization process, there are many cases in which there is a abnormality in history. Therefore, we tried to analyze the case of the school foundation which had undergone normalization process due to the dispute or negation of the private school centering on the university. As a result of analyzing the case of the school corporation in which the temporary director has been appointed, it is found that the problem of the cancellation of the approval of the inauguration of officers in normalization process, the subject of the judgment of normalization period, normalization system, normalization of who will be elected as a righteous person by reflecting their opinions. And these are the main research task in normalization.

전선 : 사립학교법상 학교법인의 정상화에 있어 종전이사의 지위

김명연 ( Myoung Youn Kim ) 민주주의법학연구회 2008 민주법학 Vol.0 No.36

학교법인의 정상화 과정에 있어서 임시이사였던 자의 지위

이종근(Lee, Jong Geun) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2022 서강법률논총 Vol.11 No.1

사립학교법상 임시이사 제도와 학교법인의 정상화 -서울북부지방법원 2011가합10567판결을 중심으로-

김호정 ( Kim Ho-jeong ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2013 외법논집 Vol.37 No.1

Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (HUFS) has been managed by temporary director system in consequence of internal complications and normalised by going through formalities appointing legal director, However, the court recently sentenced that the appointment of legal director in the Board of Directors consisting of temporary director is invalidity in the intent of the law. Accordingly, the judgement above has been examined in this paper. First, as a previous director has a legal interest in a status of representing autonomy and identity of the educational foundation, the court of first instance recognised that he had a interest in the litigation in pursuit of confirmation of nullity. The Constitutional Court, however, made a judgement regarding the status of a previous director as an indirect interest or an interest de facto, and also among recent judgements sentenced in the Supreme Court, there appears judgements not considering the status of a previous director as a legal rights or a legal interest even though a legal director has been appointed by a temporary director under an arrangement with a previous director, and the court of first instance has overlooked this. Second, the court of first instance made a judgement of invalidity not recognising substantive legitimacy about the resolution of the appointment decided by temporary directors due to the reason several previous directors’ opinions hadn’t been reflected. According to a majority opinion’s intent of the Supreme Court’s judgement about the case of Sangji University which the court of first instance complies with, the substantive legitimacy of the resolution of the appointing legal director is decided not by whether the resolution reflects an opinion of individual previous director or not, but by whether the freedom of establishment and management of the educational foundation, procuring autonomy and identity of the foundation, has been infringed or not. Consequently, the judgement of the court of first instance cannot be a pertinent result which failed to interpret a majority opinion of the case of Sangji University. Thus, a judgement that differs from the one of the court of first instance is expected in an appellate trial as well as in the Supreme Court.

프라이버시의 침해

윤기택 ( Yun Gi-taek ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2013 외법논집 Vol.37 No.1

The concept of a tort of invasion of privacy has been initiated and recognized by two lawyers named Warren and Brandeis in the USA in 1890. Professor Prosser classified the concept into four types in 1960, namely, first, 'unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another', second, 'appropriation of another's name or likeness' third, 'public disclosure of private facts', and fourth, 'displaying another in a false light before the public'. The Court of the USA has acknowledged and recognised the concept of the invasion of privacy by Prosser, which four classifications of the invasion of privacy against the general right to privacy have been adopted into the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652(1977). The factor of ‘the disclosure of private fact’ has been recognised by Warren and Brandeis and derived from the fundamental concept of privacy, distinguishing from the other three types of the invasion of privacy. Further, many cases in the USA in relation to the type, namely ‘the public disclosure of private facts about the plaintiff, than the other three types, have hugely contributed to the development of the privacy law around the world as well as the countries like England, Australia and New Zealand. Whilst in general, the Korean Courts have had a tendancy to consider the cases about whether ‘the public disclosure of private facts about the plaintiff’ constitutes to tortious acts as a kind of cases of defamation or violation of personal rights, however, around the later of the 1990s, in the decision of the 96/ 11327 by the Korean Supreme Court dated 4 September 1998, the Korean Courts distinguished the cases of invasion of privacy from the ones of defamation. It, now, is more likely for the Korean Courts clearly to differentiate and distinguish the invasion of privacy cases from the defamation or interference of personal rights cases though, thereafter, there have still been cases where the Korean Courts have dealt cases of invasion of privacy as cases of defamation or interference of personal rights. In the above case, it has been acknowledged that ‘the public disclosure of private facts of the plaintiff’ may amount to a tortious act of invasion of privacy, which is similarly recognized as the concurrent requirements set by Commonwealth countries and the USA, namely, first, the existence of facts in respect of which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and second, publicity given to those private facts that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person. Further, as for defences, it does not differ from the principles in the Commonwealth countries or the USA in that privacy should be protected against any interference in private matter unless the matter is subject to ‘the legitimate public interest’. Although the extent of protection of privacy of public figures may be diminished as their public status increases. they do not automatically lose all rights to privacy. In relation to the rights to the privacy of the public figures, the most important threshold appears to lie in whether there is overarching 'public interest' present in the cases specific, which is quite similar to the requirements in the Commonwealth countries and the USA. As for remedies in the invasion of privacy cases, they are quite different from those of defamation cases. It, in fact, is impossible for the invasion of privacy cases to be reinstated to the original state as correction notice or similar may incur another risk rather to re-disclose of the private facts than reinstatement. Therefore, reinstatement should not be allowed for the above reason. An injunction to restrain publication in the face of an alleged interference with privacy will only be available where it is clear, that in an appropriate case an injunction may issue. In most cases damages will be considered an adequate remedy. Now, the right of privacy has become one of the most important rights to be protected against any interference of privacy. Out of various privacy matters, cases about ‘the disclosure of private facts to the public’ have been frequently heard most before the court. As for this, I wanted to clarify where to locate the invasion of privacy due to the disclosure of private facts in torts law by clarifying the requirements, defences and remedies in relation to the torts in Korean cases. I hope this study may provide some assistance to understand differences between defamation and invasion of privacy, and to clarify the relationship between the privacy types.