16. Standard Korean Language Case

[21-1(B) KCCR 746, 2006Hun-Ma618, May 28, 2009]

Regarding the constitutional complaint against Part 1, Chapter 1, Clause 1 of the Standard Language Regulation which stipulates the standard Korean be the "modern Seoul vernacular widely used by civilized people", the Constitutional Court unanimously delivered an opinion of dismissal on the grounds that there is no exercise of governmental power. Regarding the provisions of the Framework Act on the National Language which mandates public documents and textbooks to be written in the standard language, the constitutional complaint was denied on the grounds that the provisions cannot be regarded infringing on the basic rights.

Background of the Case

Complainants are elementary, middle and high school students and parents all over the country and people who make out public documents, working for public institutions including state organs. Part 1, Chapter 1, Clause 1 of the Standard Language Regulation stipulates the standard Korean be the "modern Seoul vernacular widely used by civilized people" (hereinafter, the standard Korean language provision). Article 14, Section 1 of the Framework Act on the National Language mandates public documents to be written following the Standard Language Regulation and Article 18 of the Framework Act on the National Language stipulates the standard Korean language be used in compiling, authorizing or approving textbooks (hereinafter, combined the two provisions of Framework Act on the National Language referred to as the "Instant Provisions") The complainants filed this constitutional complaint on May 23, 2006, arguing that the standard Korean language provision and the Instant Provisions infringe on their right to happiness, equality and education.

Provisions at Issue

Standard Language Regulation

Article 1. Standard Korean is the modern Seoul vernacular widely used by civilized people.

Fomer Framework Act on the National Language(before revised by Act No. 8852, 0n February 29, 2008)

Article 14 (writing public documents)

① Public documents shall be written in Korean following the Standard Language Regulation. Provided that Chinese letter or other foreign letter may be used in the parenthesis according to the Presidential decree.

② Others necessary in writing Korean in the Public documents will be stipulated in the Presidential decree.

Article 18 (observation of standard regulation in textbooks) Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development shall observe the standard regulation in compiling, authorizing or approving textbooks prescribed in Article 29 of Act on Elementary and Middle Education, and can consult with the Ministry of Culture and Sightseeing if necessary.

Summary of the Decision

The Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed this complaint regarding the standard Korean language provision and denied it regarding the Instant Provisions in a 7 to 2 vote. The summary of the decision is as follows:

1. Court Opinion

A. Standard Korean Language Provision

The standard Korean language provision defines the modern Seoul vernacular, which is widely used by civilized people in the metropolitan area, as the standard language of Korea. This provision which merely provides a definition of standard language does not have any legal effect in itself. As it neither denies or limits the

complainants' rights and freedom nor imposes duties on them, it does not have effect on the complainants' legal status. Therefore, we cannot say that there is possibility or danger for the standard Korean language provision to infringe on the basic rights.

B. Instant Provisions

Considering the citizens' expectation on uniformity of language used to draft public documents by public institutions and the possible confusion and disorder in communication caused by using non standardized dialects in drafting public documents, the rule on public documents prescribed in the Instant Provisions is indispensable.

Regarding the rule on textbook in the Instant Provisions, if the language used to write textbook differs by region, students living in areas where distinctive provincial dialects are used may lose opportunity to learn the standard Korean, which would end up negatively affecting communication among members of the country. Therefore, the Instant Provisions are necessary for public interest.

The provisions of Framework Act on the National Language stipulate the scope of standard language according to the standard Korean language provision. Given the following facts such as Seoul has the deepest historical and cultural significances, the city signifies the nation's geographic center, the Seoul vernacular is used by the most number of people and many other factors, and designating the Seoul vernacular as the standard Korean language cannot be seen as a violation of fundamental rights. Also, as there are many different branches even within the Seoul vernacular, it is logical to set the language used by civilized people as the standard language.

The Standard Language Regulation, which was enacted in 1988 after collecting opinions of specialists through various channels such as the National Language Deliberation Council from the 1970s, is the fruit of the endeavor of numerous specialists in Korean language. Therefore, judicial review on the content of the standard Korean language provision should be conducted very cautiously.

In conclusion, we think the Instant Provisions are not in violation of the rule against excessive restriction and therefore, not in violation of the Constitution.

2. Dissenting Opinion of Two Justices (Opinion of Unconstitutionality)

Designating a specific dialect as a standard language may cause considerable inconvenience and difficulties to those who use other dialects than the standard language. Today, the differences among various dialects used in our country has dwindled down to the extent that people from all different parts of the country seldom have difficulties in communicating with each other. Against this backdrop, strict adherence to the old standard for standard language may hamper the development of the standard language, and further the development of Korean language itself.

Each local language other than Seoul vernacular is not only a product of history, culture and spirit of people living in the area but also our cultural heritage as a whole inherited over the long haul. Considering such local languages can be the most appropriate means to convey and express emotion and sentiment of the whole people in our country as well as the local people using the dialects, exclusion of those local languages from the scope of standard language, which may make the local people feel culturally deprived, does not seem proper.

The standard that defines the modern Seoul vernacular as the standard Korean language is too narrow and rigid to facilitate communication among people, and can be a hindrance to cultural integration of our country. Therefore, this standard cannot be a reasonable norm to restrict the basic rights of people not living in Seoul.

The Instant Provisions which confine the scope of standard language only to the Seoul vernacular and mandate public documents and textbooks to be written in the standard language infringe on the people's right to pursue happiness in terms of using language, thereby violating the Constitution.