[학위수여이행][공1998.12.15.(72),2830]
[1] Whether a private university can establish school regulations that provide students with certain contents of religious education as a requirement for graduation (affirmative with qualification)
[2] The case holding that it is not a school regulation that invalidates unconstitutionality against the freedom of religion under the Constitution, in the case where a private university established by the foundation of the Korean reading established the school regulations which provide for the requirement of graduation to attend a course of college arts for a certain semester
[3] Whether the school regulations of private universities have binding force on students of curriculum, graduation, or conferment of degrees under the former Enforcement Decree of the Education Act (affirmative with qualification)
[1] Unlike national and public schools, a private school may conduct religious education or religious publicity as a content of the freedom of religion. The essence of a school is to provide education to students as an educational facility including human and physical facilities. In particular, since a private school is granted autonomy under the Constitution, it may establish school administration, school admission and graduation or school facilities as school regulations, etc. In addition, Article 55 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Education Act provides that school regulations as documents necessary for an application for authorization to establish a school. Article 56 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Education Act provides that "matters concerning the school and the number of school days" as matters to be stated in school regulations, "matters concerning the completion of examinations (or examinations) and courses," and "matters concerning admission, transfer, expulsion, transfer, school completion, completion, graduation, etc." to the extent that it does not infringe on the freedom of religion of students to the extent that it does not establish school regulations.
[2] The case holding that since a private university established by the Gido Foundation established by the Gido Foundation established by its school regulations set the six-year course course of study as the requirements for graduation from the university, the course of study of the above university takes a variety of forms, such as lectures and dramas, as well as lectures by pastors, and does not evaluate the attitude and performance of the course of study only as the requirements for the student to attend the course of study, the course of study of the above university is not directly aimed at fostering students, but does not directly aim to train students, and it is aimed at cultivating universal culture based on truth and love by providing religious education to the extent that it does not infringe on the freedom of religion, the course of study of the above university set the six-year term course course of study as the requirements for graduation from the university does not constitute unconstitutional school regulations that violate the freedom of religion under the Constitution.
[3] When comprehensively considering the contents of the constitutional provisions and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes that stipulate the autonomy of universities and the nature of school education, it is binding upon the Plaintiff, as a matter of course at the time of the Plaintiff’s completion of educational courses at private universities, the school regulations of private universities on curricula, graduation and conferment of degrees, which are stipulated in the items of school regulations under Article 56 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Education Act, are binding on the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances such as in
[1] Articles 20 and 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 5, 81, and 115 of the former Education Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Framework Act on Education, Act No. 5437 of December 13, 1997); Articles 55 and 56 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Education Act / [2] Articles 20 and 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 5, 81, and 115 of the former Education Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Framework Act on Education, Act No. 5437 of December 13, 1997); Articles 5 and 56 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Education Act / [3] Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 55 and 56 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Education Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Do519 delivered on September 26, 1989 (Gong1989, 1609) Supreme Court Decision 92Do1742 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 650) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1123 delivered on July 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 1243) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4737 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong192, 2420)
[Judgment of the court below]
School Foundation (Attorney Kim Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 95Na29385 delivered on July 24, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
1. The lower court: (a) established and operated a non-governmental university’s office for religious purposes; (b) determined that the Plaintiff’s admission to the department of law of the sub-university and completed the course of study by up to 194; (c) based on the basic ideology of pre-university education, the aforementioned university’s academic theory and application methods are to train students to serve in the State, society, and churches; (d) the credits required for graduation from the department of law are not less than 150 credits; (e) the university’s academic rules stipulate that students who did not submit academic papers are not required to attend the university’s school for the purpose of establishing a non-governmental university or college’s education for the purpose of establishing a non-permanent school. Accordingly, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s admission to the above university or college is not obliged to complete six or more semesters, and that the Plaintiff is not obliged to graduate from the university or college for the purpose of conducting education on the basis of the basic principles of non-permanent school regulations, including the content and non-permanent school regulations.
In light of the above, the fact-finding and decision of the court below are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment, inconsistency with the reasoning, or lack of reasoning as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal related to
2. In full view of the contents of the constitutional provisions and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes providing for the autonomy of universities and the nature of school education, it is naturally binding on the Plaintiff’s school regulations of private universities relating to curricula, graduations, and conferment of degrees, which are stipulated in the school regulations under Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Education Act, at the time the Plaintiff completed educational courses at the sublime University. Therefore, in this case, the Plaintiff, a student of the sublime University, is bound by the school regulations of the above university, which set forth six semesters as the requirement for graduation. Although the reasoning of the lower judgment differs, it is justifiable to conclude that the contents of the above school regulations are binding on the Plaintiff.
In addition, the ground of appeal on the premise that the school regulations governing the requirements for graduation of the above university is subject to the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal due to a new assertion made in this court.
Therefore, we cannot accept all the grounds of appeal related to this point.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)