Whether it is against Article 10 of the Constitution, etc. that does not have any exceptional provision that allows a teacher belonging to a private university with this medical department to hold a concurrent office in a certain hospital, unlike a general public educational official, is against Article 19-2 (1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act (negative)

Article 19-2(1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act (Amended by Act No. 10868, Jul. 21, 201); Article 55 of the Private School Act; Articles 10, 11, 15, 22(1), 31(4), and 37(2) of the Constitution

School Foundation Eul Private Teaching Institute (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Ko Hyun-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Education, Science

The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed.

I examine the reasons for the application.

Article 11 of the Framework Act on Education, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the Higher Education Act classify each school into national, public, and private schools according to the founding and managing body of the schools (Article 11 of the Framework Act on Education, Article 3 of the Elementary and Secondary Education, and Article 3 of the Higher Education Act). The Framework Act on Education stipulates the public nature of the schools (Article 9(2)), guarantees the status of teachers, and does not distinguish national, public, and private school teachers (Article 14). The Private School Act provides that the qualifications of private school teachers shall be governed by the provisions on the qualifications of national, public, and private school teachers (Article 52). The provisions of Article 53-4 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appointment of college teachers who are not the head of the schools (Article 56 through 60-2 of the Framework Act on Education, and Article 60 of the Private School Pension Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the same procedures for guaranteeing the status of teachers and the social security (Article 60 of the Public Educational Officials Act).

In full view of the aforementioned provisions related to the status of teachers under the Education-Related Act, the current educational law does not place a teacher in charge of education as a public system, and instead regards it as a volunteer for the general public. In relation to the expertise of education, it can be seen that the current educational law regulates that equal treatment of teachers of public and private schools shall be given without being bound (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order 89Hun-Ga106, Jul. 22, 1991; Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2008Hun-Ga15, Jul. 29, 2010).

In light of the public nature of education and the unique characteristics of the status of private school teachers, Article 55 of the Private School Act provides that Article 19-2(1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 10868, Jul. 21, 201) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the service of the teaching staff of the national and public schools, and Article 19-2(1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 10868, Jul. 21, 201); thus, there is no separate provision that allows a private university affiliated with this medical department to hold a concurrent office in a specific hospital, unlike general public educational officials, as otherwise alleged in each of the above legal provisions, it cannot be deemed that there is a violation of Articles 10, 11, 15, 22(1), 31(4), and 37(2) of the Constitution.

Therefore, the application for the motion for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)