"Signed a Reappointment Contract, So Give Up Claims for Reduced Wages?"... "Flawed Legal Reasoning" Overturned at Supreme Court [Blueprint for Victory]

Daeryook & Aju Overturns Losses in Both Lower Courts
Professor Salaries Cut Solely Because of Department Closure Decision
Focuses on Separating Reappointment Contracts from the Validity of Invalid Employment Rules

"The claim for the salary reductions after reappointment was rejected at both the first and second trials, and my client hesitated to appeal to the Supreme Court. Still, I wanted to directly challenge the legal reasoning that treated signing a reappointment contract as acceptance of even invalid regulations."

Wi Jonguk, an attorney at Daeryook & Aju, explained in a recent interview with The Asia Business Daily how he overturned at the Supreme Court a ruling in a case brought by a private university faculty member whose salary had been cut solely because the university decided to close the faculty member's department.

Attorneys Wi Jonguk (right) and Jeong Heejin of DaeRyook & Aju pose before an interview with The Asia Business Daily at the law firm's office in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, on the 8th. Photo by Kang Jinhyung.

The school foundation established "Regulations on Faculty in Discontinued Departments," under which the annual salaries of faculty members whose departments were slated for closure were adjusted to 80% of the previous year's salary in the first year, and then to 80% of that amount the following year, even while their departments remained open. As a result, Professor A's salary fell by as much as 36%, or more than 2.3 million won per month. Professor A sued to recover the reduced wages, but the claims for reductions after reappointment were rejected at both the first and second trials. The courts held that, by signing a reappointment contract, the professor had accepted the employment conditions in effect at the time of reappointment.

◆Pursuing the Case to the Supreme Court Despite Losing at Both Trials

From the first trial, Daeryook & Aju focused on the "inherent defect" in the Regulations on Faculty in Discontinued Departments, which formed the basis for the salary cuts. Under the school foundation's articles of incorporation, amendments or enactment of regulations on faculty compensation required approval by the board of directors. However, the board minutes obtained in a related case contained no resolution approving the enactment or amendment of the regulations. A separate case had already established a final ruling that the regulations were invalid because they had been enacted or amended without board approval.

The problem was the trend in existing precedents. Lower courts had repeatedly ruled that when faculty members without tenure signed reappointment contracts, they were deemed to have accepted the employment rules in effect at the time of reappointment. After faculty members at the same university continued to lose similar lawsuits, Professor A also hesitated to appeal.

Attorney Wi said, "I thought there might not be many opportunities to directly challenge at the Supreme Court a legal principle I had long considered wrong. I wanted to use this opportunity to properly challenge at the Supreme Court the existing legal reasoning that had been repeated in both the first and second trials."

◆"Invalid Remains Invalid, Even After Reappointment"

At the appeal, the focus was on distinguishing between "signing a reappointment contract" and "the validity of invalid employment rules." Daeryook & Aju reorganized the facts and relevant precedents from the first and second trials, restructuring its arguments for review on questions of law. Its argument was that accepting employment rules that had been lawfully established was different from reviving through reappointment regulations that had no legal effect because they had not gone through the required procedures in the first place.

The Supreme Court accepted this argument. It ruled that if a university's articles of incorporation require board approval to enact or amend the regulations, any regulations adopted without such approval have no legal effect, and that remains true even if a faculty member later signs a new reappointment contract. The court overturned the part of the ruling rejecting Professor A's wage claim for the period from September 2021 to May 2024 and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

Attorney Wi said, "Many faculty members at private universities give up claims for reduced wages simply because they have signed reappointment contracts. This ruling will set a precedent showing that even after a reappointment contract is signed, the validity of employment rules with defects in their enactment procedures can still be challenged."

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