학교법인의 정상화 처분에 관한 대법원 판례의 법리

허덕회(Huh, Buk-Hoi) 한국토지공법학회 2013 土地公法硏究 Vol.61 No.-

사립학교법 제25조의3 제1항은 임시이사가 선임되어 있는 학교법인의 정상화 방법과 그 절차는 규정하고 있으나, 조정위원회의 정상화의 심의 및 관할청의 처분의 범위와 한계에 대해서는 아무런 규정을 두고 있지 않고 있다. 그리하여 대법원은 임시이사가 선임되어 있는 학교법인의 정상화는 학교법인의 설립 및 운영의 자유, 그리고 학교법인의 정체성을 회복하는 문제로 보고, 임시이사 선임 직전의 학교법인의 정체성의 승계 내지 회복하는 절차적 고려가 있어야 하며, 이러한 절차적 고려 없이 이루어진 학교법인의 정상화는 학교법인의 설립 및 운영의 자유를 본질적 침해 내지는 과잉제한의 문제가 발생할 수 있다. 그리고 학교법인에 대한 국가의 감독권도 학교법인 설립자가 작성한 정관 기타 설립 당시의 설립자의 의사에 부합하게 운영될 수 있도록 하는 범위 내에서 행사되어야 한다는 학교법인의 정상화 기준을 확립하여 사립학교법 입법적 흠결을 보완하고 있다. 즉, 대법원은 임시이사가 선임되어 있는 학교법인의 정상화를 헌법상 사립학교 설립 및 운영의 자유와 재단법인의 일종인 학교법인 제도의 본질에 관한 일반 원칙을 기반으로 하는 정상화의 기준을 마련하고 있다. 본 논문은 대법원 판례가 확립하고 있는 학교법인의 정상화의 기준을 검토하여 학교법인의 정상화에 관한 조정위원회의 심의권 및 관할청의 처분권의 범위와 그 한계를 명확히 정립하고자 한다. The Law of Private School in Korea § 25-3 authorize to Ministry of Education appoint to Legal Entity of school temporary directors of power, but § 25-3 does not provide Ministry of Education of competency and limits. The Supreme Court in Korea sentence normalization of Legal Entity of school establishment and management of freedom in Constitution Law in Korea, and Recovery of the original form of Legal Entity of school. According to Ministry of Education procedure on normalization of legal entity of school must reflect person foundation of private school and the directors of legal entity of school in past. Private School Disputes Mediation Committee deliberate on original form of legal entity of school and Ministry of Education appoint to directors of legal entity of school according to the deliberation result. In this article purpose that doctrine of normalization of legal entity of school about on Private School Disputes Mediation Committee deliberation of original form of legal entity of school and Ministry of Education decision of competency and limits in Supreme Court's common law.

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.

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.

사학분쟁조정제도에 대한 고찰

전희두(Jeon Hee Du) 한국부패학회 2016 한국부패학회보 Vol.21 No.3

사립학교는 그 설립자가 私人이기 때문에 자주성을 가지게 된다, 또한 학교라는 공익적 목적을 수행하는 기관임임에서 오는 공공성도 부인할 수 없다. 우리나라 사립학교법의 개정과정을 살펴보면, 역사적으로 어떤 정권이 등장하느냐에 따라 자주성과 공공성, 정부의 개입 정도가 크게 다르게 작용하여 왔다. 사학분쟁조정제도를 통한 국가의 私學에 대한 관여는 사학의 자주성과 공공성의 정도에 크게 기인한다. 사학의 자주성이 강조되는 시대에서는 사학분쟁조정제도에서도 정부는 최소한의 역할만 하게 되고 가급적 자주성을 신장하는 방향에서 정책 운용을 하게 되고, 공공성이 부각되는 시대에 있어서는 국가 차원에서 제도적으로 다양한 정책 수단을 동원하여 분규 사학에 대한 분쟁 조정에 적극적으로 개입하게 된다. 본 연구는 사학에 분규가 발생하여 사학의 본연의 목적을 제대로 달성할 수 없다고 관할 청이 판단했을 경우, 이러한 분쟁을 제도적으로 해결 내지는 최소화 하고자 하는 사학분쟁조정제도의 법적 수단이 어떤 것이 있는지를 검토하게 된다. 대체적으로 사립학교법상 사학분쟁조정제도로서는 사학분쟁조정위원회, 그리고 이와는 직접적인 관련은 없지만 사학분쟁조정이 이루어지기 전 단계에서 거의 필수적으로 취해지고 있는 관할청의 임원취임승인 취소, 또한 사학분쟁조정위원회의 심의를 거쳐 이루지는 임시이사의 선임과 해임, 그리고 임시이사 선임 사유가 해소된 학교법인의 정상화 추진 등이 사학분쟁조정제도로서의 주된 연구 대상이 될 것이다. 또한 관할청의 임원취임승인취소 처분과 사학분쟁조정위원회의 심의를 거쳐 이루어지는 임시이사의 선임에 대하여 법원은 어떠한 입장을 가지고 있는지를 대법원 판례 분석을 통하여 시사점을 제공하고자 한다. Private schools have a certain level of autonomy due to the fact that their founders are private individuals. They provide a public service as they are institutions that provide education for the public interest. If you examine the curriculum revisions of our countries laws regarding private schools, there is a big difference in government intervention on the autonomy of private schools and their goals of providing education as a public service depending on the type of government that is in power. The autonomy and public service of the nation’s private schools can benefit greatly through the use of the Private School Dispute Resolution System. In a generation where the autonomy of private schools is emphasized, the government must refrain from heavy involvement in Private School matters, including the Private School Dispute Resolution System. In a generation where the public interest is at the forefront, active intervention in conflict resolution amongst private schools is realized through the nation’s diverse policies. This study will examine legal issues involving the Private Dispute Resolution System. The main point of this research will be the Private School Dispute Resolution Committee, the approval and cancellation of a board member, the appointment of a temporary director, and how a school can begin to run properly after the appointment of a temporary director. The director took office approved and cancellation of any court about the senior executive positions, have analyzed through the Supreme Court precedents. Whatever position you may be… You can analze throught he superme court oprecedent.

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.

전선 : 학교법인의 정상화에 관한 종전이사의 이해관련성

고영남 ( Young Nam Ko ) 민주주의법학연구회 2010 민주법학 Vol.0 No.42