Case on Seoul National University's Entrance Examination Plan

[4 KCCR 659, 92Hun-Ma68 et al., October 1, 1992]

A. Background of the Case

In this case, the Constitutional Court declared as constitutional Seoul National University's new entrance examination plan to exclude Japanese in one of the foreign language electives after a grace period of two years, stating that the plan does not violate the fundamental rights of those preparing for the college entrance examination.

On April 2, 1991, the Ministry of Education, after deciding on the new college entrance examination system to be implemented in 1994, sent the Plan to Improve College Entrance Examination Systems to universities. Pursuant to the Plan, on April 2, 1992, Seoul National University (SNU) announced its 1994 Entrance Examination Plan, which excluded Japanese among the electives for prospective humanity majors. The complainants, first and second year high school students preparing for university entrance examinations in 1994 or 1995, filed a constitutional complaint against the SNU's decision to exclude Japanese.

B. Summary of the Decision

The Court rejected the complaint, ruling that the plan does not violate the fundamental rights of the complainants.

A national university can be the bearer of fundamental rights such as academic freedom and autonomy of university. The right to formulate entrance examinations falls under the domain of autonomy guaranteed to universities. In other words, even if the exclusion of Japanese from the foreign language electives in the SNU entrance examination works as a disadvantage to students who have been preparing to take the foreign language exam on Japanese, the disadvantage is incidental to a lawful exercise of autonomy pursuant to an independent academic judgment made by SNU as the bearer of academic freedom and autonomy of universities, and thus inevitable.

Not only did SNU replace Japanese with Chinese classics, a subject taught in all high schools as a requirement, but it also announced the 1994 Entrance Examination Plan two years before its implementation, allowing two or three years of a preparatory period for first or second-year high school students who

were learning Japanese. Therefore, the SNU Plan did not infringe on the complainants’ expectation interests or their right to equal educational opportunities.

Justice Cho Kyu-Kwang dissented, saying that the relationship between the complainants and the respondent should not be seen as a mutual one between bearers of fundamental rights but as between a bearer of fundamental rights and a state actor. He argued that, in the case of the complainant in the second year of high school, his or her equality and right to equal education had been violated. Justice Kim Yang-Kyun also dissented, asserting that the above Entrance Examination Plan is an unconstitutional exercise of governmental power, as it lacks sufficient transitional measure.