The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court have held that the contents of Article 82 (1) of the Medical Service Act, which allowed the recognition of the qualification as a massage only for the visually disabled, cannot be viewed as a violation of the Constitution by essentially infringing the freedom of occupation of non-disabled persons beyond the limit of the legislation that limits fundamental rights under Article 37 (2) of the Constitution

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do1824 Decided March 25, 2010; 201Hun-Ga39, 2012Hun-Ma608, and 2013Hun-Ga3 Decided June 27, 2013, etc.). The allegation in the grounds of appeal that Article 82(1) of the Medical Service Act is unconstitutional and invalid is inconsistent with the purport of the Constitutional Court’s decision and the Supreme Court’s decision, and thus, cannot be accepted.

In addition, the argument that there was no perception of illegality against the Defendants is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as alleged in the ground of appeal by the Defendants, or by the lower court’s decision that it was not subject to ex officio determination.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.