대학교원기간임용제탈락자구제를위한특별법상 “재임용 재심사의 요건과 효과” (Professor's right to be reappointed, unless other special reason hindering the automatic prolongation of contract- As to the Special Act for Recovery of Professorship of the Dismissed of 2005 -)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 대한교육법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 교육법학연구 / 17권 / 2호 / 93 ~ 130페이지
· 저자명 : 이순철

초록

「대학교원 기간임용제 탈락자 구제를 위한 특별법」(법률 제 7583호: 이하 특별법)’은 교수재임용제의 악용으로 부당하게 해직된 대학교원의 구제를 목적으로 한다. 이에 따라 이 법에 대한 해석, 적용은 기간임용제(재임용제)의 근본취지와 파행적 운용의 결과를 신속간명하게 처리한다는 차원에서 이루어져야 한다. 부당하게 재임용에서 탈락하였음을 주장하는 청구인이 그 권리를 구제받기 위한 요건은 법 제1조, 제2조 제2항, 제7조 등이 정한다. 본고는 이에 따라 재임용재심사를 청구할 수 있는 청구적격으로서 ‘재임용탈락자’의 개념과 그 범위, 재심사의 기준, 그리고 위원회의 결정이 가지는 효력을 차례로 다루었다. 특별법 제 2조가 정의하는 “재임용 탈락”은 임용기간 만료와 재임용심사기준미달의 두 경우로 나누어 볼 수 있다. 인용결정의 조건이라 할 제 7조의 심사기준은 특별법의 목적에 부합하도록 대학교수의 학문성과 교육역량으로 축소하여 해석, 적용하여야 한다. 교원소청위원회 특별위원회가 한시법이라는 제약 속에서 그 결정에 객관성과 공정성을 보장받으려면, 제 7조의 판단을 첫째, 유형적 연구업적물의 존재 여부, 둘째 재임용심사가 이루어졌었는지, 셋째, 업적물에 대한 심사가 이루어졌는지, 넷째 심사의 주체가 누구였는가 그리고 마지막으로 다섯째 그 심사가 공정하고 객관적 이었는가 등 다섯 단계로 나누어 보는 것이 바람직하다. 재임용거부처분의 취소결정에 대한 피청구인의 불복배제, 위원회 결정의 기속력, 형성력에 따라, 청구인의 지위는 탈락 시로 즉시 회복되고 계속 재임한 것으로 보게 된다. 복직된 청구인의 지위는 재임용탈락을 부당해고로 파악하는 종래의 기대권론보다는 민법 제 149조와 154조에 따라서, 기대권을 신의와 성실에 반하여 침해한 경우 기대권자가 그 조건성취를 주장하는 경우로 보는 것이 더 논리적이다.

영어초록

The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Korea rejected requests of plaintiffs (professors) exempted from the reappointment contract, on the basis that the rejection of the university trustee is not to be regarded as an act adaptable to be dealt with suit. The courts departed thereby from the notion that the employment contract between the professor and the trustee automatically expires as the duration agreed expires. Thanks to this interpretation of courts against the plaintiff, trustees of korean universities and colleges have been accustomed in dismissing the professors who are well qualified in their field of studies but have tendency to express their opinion frankly. Ironically enough, those professors prominent as political dissidents during the dictatorial regime and whom the dictatorial regimes' introduction of the reappointment system targeted were able be reappointed by civil governments until about 1980s in the course of democratization. About 400 and more dismissed professors who are not regarded as political dissidents have filed the suit, without any positive result. The flood of dismissed professors was caused by the famous amendment of Private School Act of 1990, which encouraged the trustees to notify the hatred professors that they are driven out at any time without due process. In short, at their will. However, in 2003, the Constitutional Court ruled that 2 of paragraph 53 of Private School Act of 1990 does not comply with the korean constitution declaring the obligation of the government to protect the teachers position. This ruling followed by a judgement of the Supreme Court made an amendment of the act and the recovery of the dismissed professors' rights inevitable. In order to meet this ruling the parliament codified 2005 a special act having ex tunc effect, named Daehakkyowon Kikanimyongje Talakja Kujerul wihan Teukbyolbob (Special Act for Recovery of Professorship of the Dismissed). According to this special act a dismissed professor can be reappointed, when the rejection of reappointment of trustee is proved to be unjust. The Special Committee of the Appeal Commission for Teachers attached to the Ministry of Education should judge wether the rejection was based on the one or more of the criteria: Teaching, Researching and others.
In this article I discussed the requirements including criterion of reappointment and the effect of the judgement of the Special Committee. I have the opinion that the criterion prescribed in Art. 7 of the act is dubious and extensive. It is therefore a lot of concern that the committee would rather support the past rejection of trustee than make a dismissed professor come back to school and get restitution more easily. Therefore, the criterion should be interpreted in the way that they can cover only the original responsibility of university professors, i.e, research and education. In other words, only a poor academic achievement of the dismissed can be the reason justifying the rejection of reappointment. In regard to the evaluation, tangible materials representing the academic achievement must come at first to be taken into account. When the committee judges the rejection was unjust, it means the rejection is revoked. The dismissed shall recover the deprived position at once, without any further action and his position is considered to be continued until now.

참고자료

· 없음