사학분쟁조정위원회의 대법원 판례 해석과 정이사 선임원칙 등의 문제점 ― 상지학원의 정이사 선임 사례를 중심으로 ―

Abstract

The Private School Dispute Resolution Committee has the power to appoint the ad-hoc directors, discharge them or appoint the regular directors to normalize private schools. It made a decision regarding Sangji Educational Foundation last year. The decision is to appoint the directors recommended by the ex-director Moonki Kim who was discharged because of his crime regarding illegal operations of the Foundation as a director. The Committee says that the decision is based on the judgement of the Supreme Court relating to the Sangji Educational Foundation in 2007. But the Committee distorted the judgement to justify its own decision. It regards the concurring opinion of two Associate Justices as the binding opinion of the Supreme Court. Only the opinion of the Court has the binding power, but the concurring one does not. The Committee even made its decision arbitrarily because there is no regulation on the way and scope to normalize private schools. The power of regulation is delegated to the Committee too comprehensively. It’s the defect of the legislation which should be corrected by the legislative body. It was wrong for the Committee to appoint the crime-related people as directors of Sangji Educational Foundation. It should have considered the moral aspects of the ex-director Kim. He has the critical defect to become an educator.