사립학교법상 임시이사 파견 학교법인의 정상화 방안

The purpose of this paper is to trace the evolution of the legal framework under the Private School Act governing the “normalization” of school corporations to which temporary directors have been dispatched, to analyze court decisions, and to propose practical policies for the sound development of schools that have been normalized. At present, private schools account for a large share in Korea. Disputes over their operation have been frequent, leading in many cases to the cancellation of director appointments at school corporations and the dispatch of temporary directors. Yet, new conflicts often arise the moment the normalization process begins—largely because the relevant statutes and regulations lacked clear rules for that process. The amendment of the Private School Act on July 27, 2007 introduced the Private School Dispute Resolution Committee. However, because it did not set substantive principles for reviewing normalization, the process largely degenerated into a channel for restoring control to the former foundation that had borne responsibility for campus disputes. To correct this, the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act was amended on June 26, 2018. It added a clause (Article 9-7, Paragraph 5, Subparagraph 1) stipulating that an association of former or current directors, which includes former directors responsible for school disputes as its members, may recommend less than a majority of candidates for regular director positions. This was an eminently reasonable measure. In line with that amendment, the Committee began exercising its decision-making authority when normalizing school corporations with temporary directors. These changes, however, prompted a wave of lawsuits by former directors whose recommendation powers were restricted. This paper analyzes major cases—Sungshin, Sangji, and Chungam. Fortunately, in all of these cases the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the former directors’ claims. Korea is effectively in a state of “over-privatization” in schooling: private middle and high schools are highly concentrated in major cities, and private universities dominate higher education. From the standpoint of public education, a policy to foster “Government-dependent private school”(public-dependent models) is needed—particularly for institutions that have undergone legal normalization and become, in effect, “socialized private schools.”