Whether the State Public Officials Act prohibiting a teacher's labor movement violates the spirit of respect for international law under the Constitution, in light of the treaty No. 87 and 98 of the International Labor Organization, the said organization, and the "Recommendation on the Status of Teachers" adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and the "International Declaration on Human Rights" of the United Nations

Even if the International Labor Organization (ILO) Treaty No. 87 and the Treaty No. 98 guarantee the right to organize, etc. of public officials, and the "Recommendation on Teachers' Status" adopted by the International Labor Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNFCCC), the above treaties have not been a member of the Republic of Korea, and the above recommendations cannot be deemed as effective directly in domestic law because they are only recommended effects, and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights does not have generally approved international laws and regulations, so long as there is no special legislation in the Republic of Korea, this is only recommended effects, and therefore, it cannot be said that the State Public Officials Act prohibits public officials' labor movement, thereby contrary to the spirit of respect for international law as stipulated in Article 6(1) of the Constitution.

Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 6 (1) of the Constitution

Plaintiff 1 and five others

The superintendent of the Seoul Metropolitan Education Committee

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant's dismissal against the plaintiff 1 on July 31, 1989, against the plaintiff 2 on June 22 of the same year and against the plaintiff 3 on August 27 of the same year, against the plaintiff 4 on August 12 of the same year, and against the plaintiff 5 on November 3 of the same year, each dismissal against the plaintiff 6 on September 20 of the same year is revoked.

Article 6 through 11 of Gap's evidence, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 13 and 14-1, Gap evidence 16, 17-1, Eul evidence 1,2-2 of Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 15 through 13, 17-17 through 20, Eul's evidence 2-1, 3-16 through 13, 16-16-1, Eul's evidence 3-21, Eul's evidence 4-1 through 9, Eul evidence 4-14, 16-1, 16-1 through 14, 16-17, and 5-16-1, 205-1, 6-1, 20-21, 13, 14-27, 27, and 9-16-1, 27, respectively.

Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act provides that each of the dispositions against the plaintiffs shall not be conducted collectively for labor movement or any other work except public services. Since Article 11 (1) of the Constitution stipulates that a public official shall not take measures against his own labor rights and freedom of assembly and association by preventing autonomous collective activities of public officials, and that a public official shall discriminate against the general workers and the general public on the sole ground that he is a public official, this provision guarantees the freedom of association under Article 11 (1), Article 21 (1) of the Constitution, Article 31 (4) of the Constitution, Article 33 (1) of the Constitution, Article 37 (2) of the Constitution, and Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act provides that the public official shall not take measures against the plaintiffs for disciplinary action against the same disciplinary measure as the above dispositions, and thus, the public official shall not take measures against the plaintiffs, even if so, have violated the right of discipline and the right of discipline of the members of the International Labor Organization (IO) to comply with the above disciplinary measure regulations.

Therefore, first, we examine the above argument of the plaintiffs first, in order to establish the status of a volunteer to the entire nation and guarantee fair performance of his duties and political neutrality (in the case of public educational officials, it shall also be considered in consideration of the structural characteristics of educational system according to the nature of education, the public nature of teachers' duties, expertise, the historical tradition of education in the Republic of Korea and various circumstances of education sites and education, etc.). In addition, in order to limit fundamental rights such as joining political parties, political activities, three labor rights, etc. which are not recognized for the general public. In particular, in Article 33(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the above argument that "the public official who is a public official has the right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action" does not directly limit the three labor rights of public officials under the Constitution itself as individual constitutional reservation, and thus, the above provision of Article 6(1) of the State Public Officials Act, which prohibits all public officials from exercising labor campaign or other collective action other than public duties, is not in violation of international law, Article 11(1) and Article 3(1)3) of the Constitution.7 of the Constitution.

Then, the following facts are examined with respect to the second proposal of the plaintiffs. The defendant, as the head of the educational institution for the plaintiffs, conducted sufficient investigation into the grounds for disciplinary action. After specifically specifying the plaintiffs' usual conduct, work performance, attendance, and other circumstances, the above disciplinary committee requested a resolution of disciplinary action to the General Disciplinary Committee of Public Officials Officials in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "Disciplinary Committee") with documentary evidence attached thereto, and issued a written notice of the grounds for disciplinary action to the plaintiffs who are the disciplinary suspect in advance and issued two or more summonss, and sufficient opportunity to make statements to the disciplinary committee, and the defendant decided to dismiss or dismiss the plaintiffs respectively after taking into account the above various circumstances after taking into account the procedure for disciplinary action as seen above, it can be acknowledged that the defendant dismissed or dismissed the plaintiffs. The above disciplinary procedure is legitimate in accordance with the Public Educational Officials Act, the Decree on Public Educational Officials and the Regulations on Disciplinary Punishment of Public Officials, and the Regulations on Disciplinary Punishment of Public Officials, etc., and the records of the plaintiffs' request for disciplinary action cannot be found to be unlawful.

Finally, in light of the fact that all the plaintiffs received a warning that the illegality of the preceding school section and the disciplinary action were taken in the course of joining it from their school principals, etc., the plaintiffs committed the above illegal act intentionally despite being informed of the illegality of the preceding school section and the last day of the illegal act, and there is no particularly significant public figure, etc., even though considering the motive as argued by the plaintiffs, it is difficult to see that the disposition in this case is too harsh to abuse the right of disciplinary action or deviates from the scope of the right of disciplinary action. Therefore, the third argument by the plaintiffs is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' respective claims of this case seeking revocation on the grounds that the defendant's removal or dismissal of each of the plaintiffs of this case is illegal, are all dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

Judge Lee Jae-hwan (Presiding Judge)