Law: "Suspension of pay for the Dean of Academic Affairs over 'No Disciplinary Action for Imprisoned Professor' is Wrong"

The dean of academic affairs, who received a 'salary reduction' penalty for failing to discipline a professor sentenced to imprisonment in a timely manner, filed an appeal lawsuit and won in the first trial.

Seoul Administrative Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. / Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

According to the legal community on the 10th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 2 (Presiding Judge Shin Myung-hee) ruled in favor of Professor Kim, the former dean of academic affairs, in the first trial of the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the dismissal decision by the Teacher Appeal Committee.

Previously, in July 2020, the Ministry of Education conducted a comprehensive audit of University A and raised concerns that a faculty member who had been criminally punished was not properly disciplined.

Professor B, who was indicted on fraud charges in February 2018, was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment in the appellate court at the end of January 2020, and received a final ruling from the Supreme Court three months later. According to Article 58-2 of the Private School Act, the appointing authority for faculty members may refuse to assign positions to faculty members indicted in criminal cases. However, the university did not suspend or automatically retire the professor.

The Ministry of Education demanded a mild disciplinary action against Professor Kim, the dean of academic affairs at University A, stating that "approximately 40 million KRW in salaries and other payments that should not have been paid from February to July 2020 were mistakenly paid." The university corporation imposed a 'one-month salary reduction' penalty. Professor Kim filed an administrative lawsuit after his relief request to the Teacher Appeal Committee was rejected.

The first trial ruled in favor of Professor Kim. The court stated, "The failure to suspend the position cannot be solely blamed on Professor Kim," and "When the university president requested the suspension of Professor B's position in August 2019 following the resolution of the faculty personnel committee, the corporation demanded that the reasons for the disciplinary action be presented specifically and clearly. Subsequently, Professor Kim requested the first trial judgment documents from Professor B and the victim, but both refused."

Furthermore, the court said, "The faculty personnel committee decided not to make additional requests for suspension because no courses were offered in the first semester of 2020 and it judged that suspending the position of Professor B, who was legally detained, would be ineffective," adding, "It cannot be said that the resolution was made solely according to Professor Kim's will."

However, the court pointed out that "Professor Kim's failure to process the automatic retirement after the Supreme Court's final ruling on Professor B is a disciplinary reason." Nonetheless, it ruled that "the one-month salary reduction penalty, rather than a lower-level disciplinary action such as a reprimand, was an abuse and deviation of discretionary disciplinary authority."

The court stated, "Professor Kim took measures to ensure that disciplinary procedures could proceed before the confirmation of Professor B's sentence, and accordingly, dismissal was carried out before the retirement date," adding, "Professor B returned the salaries received as recovery funds, so the corporation's damages are ultimately limited to legal fees and other costs."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.