The Supreme Court ruled that disciplinary actions against private school teachers are invalid if they are conducted without the presence and testimony of a lawyer, similar to public school procedures.
The Supreme Court's third division, led by Justice Lee Heung-gu, overturned a lower court ruling that dismissed a lawsuit filed by A, who sought to annul a decision by the Teacher Disciplinary Review Committee. The case has been sent back to the Seoul High Court.
A, appointed as an associate professor in the College of Social Sciences at a private university in March 2018, was accused of misconduct by a graduate student, B, in November 2021. A was investigated by police as a suspect in January 2022.
In February 2022, the university's disciplinary committee held a hearing and decided to dismiss A for three instances of misconduct involving B. A then filed a request for a review of the dismissal with the Teacher Disciplinary Review Committee, which was denied, prompting A to initiate an administrative lawsuit.
The key issue in this case was whether the refusal to allow A's chosen lawyer to accompany him during the disciplinary proceedings constituted a procedural violation.
A requested to have his lawyer present during the hearing. However, the disciplinary committee denied this request, allowing the lawyer to wait in a nearby room and stating that A could consult with the lawyer if needed. Investigations revealed that no consultation occurred during the hearing.
Both the first and second trials ruled that there was no legal basis to guarantee A's right to have a lawyer present during the disciplinary proceedings, resulting in a dismissal of A's claims.
The court explained that even if such a right existed, A had already submitted a written statement through his lawyer, and his testimony during the hearing did not differ from the submitted statement. The court concluded that since A could consult with his lawyer waiting nearby, the refusal to allow the lawyer's presence did not substantially hinder A's right to defend himself, nor did it invalidate the procedural legitimacy of the committee's decision.
However, the Supreme Court found that the lower court misinterpreted the legal principles regarding the presence of a lawyer in disciplinary procedures for private school teachers, which affected the ruling. The court emphasized the need for procedural rights for private school teachers to be equivalent to those of public school teachers, as outlined in the Teacher Status Act.
The court stated, "The dismissal in this case was conducted without allowing A's request for his lawyer to be present, which constitutes a significant procedural flaw that could render the decision invalid."
The court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that A intentionally delayed the proceedings or obstructed the disciplinary process. It pointed out that if the disciplinary committee or school staff prevented A from having his lawyer present, the committee's decision would have been made without ensuring A's right to defend himself, thus losing its procedural legitimacy.
Additionally, the court mentioned that A contested some of the alleged misconduct, and even though his lawyer was waiting nearby, the lack of direct consultation or advice during the hearing meant that A's ability to defend himself was not adequately protected.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.