[2] The case holding that the Addenda of the amended Enforcement Decree to the amended Enforcement Decree shall not be permitted since it violated the principle of trust protection and equality under the Constitution, where the amended Enforcement Decree is applied to a person who had already entered a college or college and had already been enrolled in a college or college before the amendment, when he changed his qualification to the "person who graduated from college or college after completing essential herb-related subjects and credits" under Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act concerning the qualification for taking the national examination for herb pharmacist

[2] The case holding that Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act prior to the amendment (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4731 of Jan. 7, 1994, and amended by Presidential Decree No. 7635 of Jul. 29, 2005) provides that the qualifications for applying the national examination for herb pharmacists under Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14319 of Jul. 7, 1994, and amended by Presidential Decree No. 15301 of Mar. 6, 1997) as "persons who completed essential herb-related subjects and credits, and graduated from universities" shall be amended by Presidential Decree No. 15301 of the revised Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15301 of Mar. 6, 1997, which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 19425 of Mar. 29, 2006) shall not be applied to those who were admitted to universities or colleges before the amendment of Article 9-2.

1. The reason why the principle of trust protection should be applied to the amendment of the law is that the law will continue in the future, based on reasonable and reasonable trust that a citizen has formed a certain legal status or living relationship, which corresponds to the law, and even if the state has not protected it at all, it is because the people's trust in the legal order will collapse, the people's future legal effect on the present act is unable to anticipate the legal stability. Such trust protection is not absolute or uniform in a certain life area, but can vary depending on freedom, rights, interests, etc. related to each individual case, and can be limited in consideration of the higher purpose of the public interest purpose to be realized through a new law. In this case, in order to determine whether it violates the principle of trust protection, the purpose of public interest to realize through a new law should be compared and balanced comprehensively on the one hand, on the one hand, other than the value of the infringed interest, the degree of infringement, the degree of damage caused by trust, and the method of infringement on trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Du13939, Nov. 16, 2006).

Notwithstanding Article 3-2 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 4731 of Jan. 7, 1994) prior to the amendment by Act No. 7635 of Jul. 29, 2005, Article 3-2 (2) of the same Act provides that a person who obtained a license for herb pharmacist from a university or college and graduated from a college, shall be granted a bachelor’s license, and has passed the national examination by the Ministry of Education. Upon delegation of the above provision, the Presidential Decree No. 14319 of Jul. 7, 1994 was amended by Presidential Decree No. 15301 of Mar. 6, 1997, the former Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15301 of Mar. 6, 1997) provides that a person who completed at least 20 subjects of study related to herb pharmacist and at least 95 credits, other than those of the previous Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, shall also be amended by Presidential Decree No. 196.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiffs received an application for admission to the Hancheon University Oriental Resource Department on December 18, 1996, which was prior to the pre-announcement of legislation, and applied for an interview on December 26, 1996, which was prior to the pre-announcement of legislation. On January 20, 1997, the successful applicant was registered on January 27, 1997, and entered the above Oriental Resources Department on March 3, 1997, and then completed the required herb-related subjects under Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree prior to the amendment, and completed the required herb-related subjects under Article 3-2 of the pre-announcement of legislation, and completed the required herb-related subjects and the minimum credits thereof, which were scheduled to graduate on February 15, 200, and the plaintiffs submitted the application for the national examination on October 15, 2003, on the ground that the defendant did not receive the Plaintiffs' qualifications under Article 3-2 (2) and Article 3) of the Enforcement Decree.

In light of the aforementioned relevant statutes and facts, first of all, the Plaintiffs, who trusted Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree prior to the amendment and expected to be entitled to take a national examination for herb pharmacists, and entered the department of oriental medicine resources at Ycheon University and went into specific acts based on the above trust. It is reasonable to view that the trust interest of the Plaintiffs’ expectation to take a national examination for herb pharmacists has the value that can be legally protected.

Furthermore, as long as Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree provides that a person who has qualifications for national examinations for herb pharmacists in universities or colleges has obtained minimum credits from essential herb-related subjects and their minimum credits, citizens are bound to prepare national examinations by taking many time and effort in line with the requirements for application, and such trusted acts should be respected particularly. If Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree applies to the Plaintiffs, it is inevitable to re-enter or transfer to other universities or colleges to acquire the qualifications for applying for national examinations for herb pharmacists. This goes beyond the scope of burden under control of the Plaintiffs, and if the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree was pre-announcement of legislation, it would be difficult for the Plaintiffs to take into account the fact that the Plaintiffs’ application for national examinations for herb pharmacists in 1,000 to obtain the qualifications for application for national examinations for herb pharmacists in 200,000 won prior to the receipt of application for national examinations for herb pharmacists in 19,000 won of the revised Enforcement Decree, the Plaintiffs would have been in violation of the qualifications for application for national examinations for herb pharmacists in accordance with the above guidelines.

In addition, even if the Ministry of Health and Welfare announced that the department of oriental medicine will be newly established in the 1996 year, and announced the comprehensive measures related to oriental medicine and the development and development plan of oriental medicine on May 16, 1996 on August 30, 1996, each of the above announcements by the Ministry of Health and Welfare is merely a reference to the improvement plan for the qualifications for applying for national examination for oriental medicine pharmacists in the process of announcing the measures to mediate disputes between oriental medical doctors and pharmacists, and such announcements may be reversed at any time, and it is insufficient to be considered as a conclusive predicted material for the possibility of amendment of the above statutes. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Plaintiffs could have sufficiently predicted the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the same content as Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act.

2. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs and those who entered the 1997 year prior to the 1996 year prior to the amendment shall be deemed to have trusted the qualifications for applying the national examination for herb pharmacists under Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree prior to the amendment and entered the university. Unlike those who entered the 1996 year prior to the amendment, if Article 3-2 of the amended Enforcement Decree applies to the plaintiffs, they will have a big burden to re-enter or transfer to other universities to obtain the qualifications for applying the national examination for herb pharmacists. As seen earlier, if Article 3-2 of the amended Enforcement Decree applies to the plaintiffs, the interest of the infringed trust is significantly higher than that of the public interest. Thus, even if those who entered the 1996 year prior to the 196 year prior to the 196 year prior to the education of the plaintiffs, it is reasonable to apply the principle of equality to the plaintiffs as well as those who entered the 196 year prior to the 196 year prior to the amendment.

3. Therefore, Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Enforcement Decree shall apply to persons who were admitted to a university prior to the year 1996 and attend the university at the time of the enforcement of the amended Enforcement Decree, and the application of Article 3-2 of the amended Enforcement Decree shall not be permitted because it violates the principle of trust protection and the principle of equality under the Constitution to those who were enrolled in the university at the time of enforcement of the amended Enforcement Decree, such as the plaintiffs, etc.

In the same purport, it is proper to determine that the disposition of this case applied to the plaintiffs under Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act is unlawful, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of trust protection and the principle of equality, as alleged in the

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Chief Justice Lee Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)