The Supreme Court ruled that the disciplinary process must be reexamined in a case where a professor at a private university in Seoul was dismissed for reasons including using inappropriate expressions toward a student and attempting physical contact.
The Supreme Court viewed it as more important to determine whether the disciplinary committee restricted the opportunity to receive assistance from counsel than to decide whether the professor's conduct constituted sexual harassment.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) said on the 14th that on the 13th it overturned the lower court's ruling, which had found against Professor A in a suit to cancel a decision against the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court.
According to prosecutors, graduate student B reported to the university human rights center after taking A's class in 2021, saying A engaged in sexual harassment and inappropriate physical contact.
The human rights center found that during early-morning KakaoTalk conversations with B, A repeatedly called B "pretty one" and asked for full-body photos, and at a restaurant referred to himself as "oppa" and tried to hold hands. Based on this, the center requested heavy discipline.
The school foundation's teachers' disciplinary committee resolved to dismiss A. A filed for a review with the Teachers' Appeal Review Committee, and when it was rejected, filed an administrative suit. A denied some of the misconduct and argued that the conduct did not constitute forcible indecent act or sexual harassment. A also said the disciplinary committee infringed the right to defense by not allowing the attendance of the attorney A had retained.
The first-instance court rejected A's claim, finding the victim's statements credible, and the appellate court maintained the same judgment.
The Supreme Court, however, found that it must reconsider whether there were problems in the disciplinary process. Noting that A requested to appear before the disciplinary committee together with an attorney to make a statement, the court determined that if the school blocked this, the deliberation and resolution on discipline could be viewed as having been conducted while restricting the right to defense.
The Supreme Court concluded that in such circumstances there is a serious defect in the disciplinary procedure, and as a rule it is difficult to recognize its validity. Accordingly, the legality of A's dismissal will be reconsidered in the remand proceedings.