[1] Whether a “private teaching institute” subject to registration under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of the former Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons refers to only the teaching curricula prescribed in attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act or the facilities provided as a learning place for the teaching subjects (affirmative)

[2] The meaning of Article 7-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons to ensure that two or more curricula can be registered and operated at a private teaching institute, and the scope of subject of mandatory registration

[3] The case holding that a private teaching institute teaching creativity, thinking ability, etc. does not constitute a "private teaching institute" registered pursuant to the provisions of the former Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons

[1] According to Article 2 subparag. 1, Article 6 of the former Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (amended by Act No. 7974 of Sep. 22, 2006), Article 5(2)2, Article 5(3)3, and Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19953 of Mar. 23, 2007), “private teaching institutes subject to the registration of the said Act” should be interpreted as limited to the curriculum or similar, or to the curriculum or the facilities provided as the learning place of the said teaching subject.

[2] The meaning of Article 7-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1953, Mar. 23, 2007) that provides that "the founder and operator of a private teaching institute may register and operate two or more curricula at one private teaching institute." For example, one teaching institute may teach “satum” and “erogate” at one teaching institute, and the character of “one teaching curriculum” does not mean that it constitutes a multiple teaching curriculum, if it does not fall under the curriculum or the similar curriculum under the above Enforcement Decree [Attachment Table 1].

[3] The case holding that the act of teaching creativity and thinking ability, etc. for children from 18 months to 1 year of elementary school does not constitute a "private teaching institute" which shall be registered pursuant to the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19953, Mar. 23, 2007) on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19953, Sep. 22, 2006)

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1 and Article 6 of the former Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (amended by Act No. 7974 of Sep. 22, 2006); Article 5(2)2 and Article 5(3)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19953 of Mar. 23, 2007); Article 7-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons / [Attachment Table 1] [2] Article 3-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19953 of Mar. 23, 2007) / [3] Article 37-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19375 of the former Enforcement Decree No. / [Attachment]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do1172 delivered on February 23, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 809)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Woo, Attorneys Park Jong-pon et al.

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007No1465 Decided April 11, 2008

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (amended by Act No. 7974 of Sep. 22, 2006; hereinafter “private teaching institutes”) provides that a private person teaches students of more than the number prescribed by the Presidential Decree with knowledge, techniques (including skills) and arts according to the teaching process for not less than 30 days, or facilities provided as learning places for not less than 30 days (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act); a person who intends to establish and operate a private teaching institute shall register with the superintendent of education under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (Article 6 of the same Act); a person who intends to establish and operate a private teaching institute shall establish and operate a private teaching institute; a person who intends to establish and operate a private teaching institute shall register the curriculum with the superintendent of education as provided for in the former Enforcement Decree of the Private Teaching Institutes Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1974 of Mar. 23, 2007; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Private Teaching Institutes”) and its attached Table 1].

In addition, Article 7-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private Teaching Institutes Act provides that "the founder and operator of a private teaching institute may register and operate two or more curricula at one private teaching institute." The above provision means that one may teach a "satum" and "erogate" at one private teaching institute for example, and it is not the meaning that the nature of "one curriculum" should be registered even if it does not fall under the curriculum or the similar curriculum as provided in attached Table 1.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: the defendant did not register with the competent authority, from September 2003 to December 6, 2006, the lecture room of 5 lecture rooms and 140 students from 145,00 per capita a monthly tuition fee of 145,00 won per 1, and the teaching of creativity and thinking ability, etc., and established and operated a private teaching institute. The court below found the facts as stated in its reasoning in full view of the adopted evidence, and found the defendant guilty of the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the ultimate purpose of the "Brick School" is sufficiently recognized that the means is an education of contents corresponding to arts and general class, even if it is not a delivery of knowledge, technical ability, or creative education, and therefore, the "Brick School" in accordance with Article 7-2 (Attachment 1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private Teaching Institutes Act includes a similar teaching curriculum or its contents as a curriculum of education, and thus, it is reversed or found the defendant guilty of the contents of the teaching.

However, it is difficult to accept such judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the education program of the “Brewing School” is based on the educational philosophy that it is important to develop logical and creative thinking that he/she can think, rather than injecting knowledge, skills and arts. The teaching content of the teaching school is one teacher per child from 18 months to 1 year in full, and shows video or think that he/she will talk about it, or talk about it after recognizing things such as overwork or art, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act does not constitute one week, 60 to 90 minutes in a certain subject, and that the Defendant’s act does not constitute an “private teaching institute” in accordance with the Enforcement Decree of the Private Institutes Act, and that it is difficult to view that it does not fall under the category of teaching technology, international high school, management practice, arts and culture, children’s entrance/art learning, traditional arts and arts practice, and that it does not fall under the category of reading/art practice, and that it does not fall under the category of reading/art practice of each school.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to “private teaching institutes” under the Private Teaching Institutes Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal assigning this error are with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)