The case holding that Article 11-2 [Attachment 2] 2 of the Public Educational Officials Act does not infringe on the constitutional equality rights and the right to hold a public office of a non-university of education located in the applying area, which provides that additional points shall be granted only to those who have graduated from a college of education located in the application area in the competitive examination for selection

The case holding that Article 11-2 [Attachment 2] 2 of the Public Educational Officials Act, which provides that additional points shall be given to those who have graduated from a college of education located in the applying region in the competitive examination for selecting candidates for teachers, does not infringe the constitutional right to equality and the right to public duties of those who have non-colleges of education located in the applying region, on the grounds that the legislative purpose is justified, proper, appropriate, and balanced legal interests are not excessive

Article 11-2 [Attachment 2] 2 of the Public Educational Officials Act, Article 11(1) of the Constitution, Article 25 of the Constitution

[Judgment of the court below]

Superintendent of the Office of Education of Daegu Metropolitan City

March 19, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On January 27, 2006, the decision that the Defendant rejected the second examination for selecting candidates for appointment of public and secondary school teachers of Daegu Metropolitan City in 2006 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 3, 2005, the Defendant published the outline of implementation (No. 2005-124 of the Daegu Metropolitan City Office of Education) with regard to the competition test for selecting candidates for appointment of public and secondary school teachers (hereinafter “instant appointment test”), and the main contents are as follows.

(1) Screening method

The appointment examination of this case is divided into the first examination and the second examination. The first examination is a written examination and a physical examination for the second subject of education, major, and the second examination for the second subject of education, major, music, and art, and the second examination is conducted only for those who have passed the first examination, and it is conducted in the first examination, such as an essay test, an interview, an interview, an evaluation of the ability to practice class (the preparation of a learning guidance proposal, and an academic achievement).

(2) Additional points for those who were enrolled in a local school (hereinafter “regional additional points”)

A graduate from the Korean Teachers' University or a graduate from a high school located in Daegu and North Korea on February 2006, or a graduate from a Daegu Metropolitan City (including a person who has passed the final examination of a graduate conducted by the Office of Education of Daegu Metropolitan City) who was a graduate from the Korean Teachers' University and on February 2, 2005, who did not have a teacher's career among prospective graduates, three points of the first examination shall be added respectively.

(3) Selection of successful applicants

A successful applicant of the first examination shall be determined in the order of the highest score score calculated by adding the first examination score, college score, and additional points within 1.3 times the number of persons eligible for recruitment by subject among those who score at least 40% of the number of persons eligible for recruitment by subject, and the successful applicant of the second examination shall be determined in the order of those who score at least 40% of the second examination score by subject among those who score at least 40% of the second examination by subject of the second examination, and those who score at least the second examination shall be determined in the order of those who score calculated by adding the first examination score (including premium points and college score) and the second examination, and the order of priority and determination

B. Around February 1998, the Plaintiff graduated from the English English department in the Hanyang University, around February 2003, and passed the first examination after applying for the English subject among the appointment examinations of this case on December 4, 2005, and completed the second examination from January 19, 2006 to January 20, 2006. As a result, the Defendant did not pass the second examination within 44 recruitment capacity of 52 applicants among the applicants for the second examination in the English subject, on the ground that the Defendant did not pass the second examination at the time of announcement of the successful applicants of the second examination on January 27, 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, excluding the regional divers, re-calculated the scores of the applicants for the second examination in English, is inside 42, etc. among the total applicants.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 6, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Based on Article 11-2 [Attachment 2] subparagraph 2 of the Public Educational Officials Act (hereinafter “instant legal provision”), granting additional points only to those who have graduated from colleges of education located in the same region (hereinafter “instant additional points”) is discrimination against those who have graduated from colleges of education located in the same region without reasonable grounds, and the instant legal provision is unconstitutional by infringing the constitutional right to equality, the right to participate in public duties, etc.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) Restriction on the right to participate in official duties and occurrence of discrimination

Even if the legal provision of this case is an applicant from the same local university, it limits the opportunity to take public office for those who were non-offenders by granting additional points to only a certain group of those who were graduates of the college of education, and treats them as discrimination against those who were enrolled in the college of education, and thus, the infringement of equality and the right to take public office is a concurrent issue, and the principle of proportionality should be examined together.

(2) Whether the legal provisions of this case are unconstitutional

(A) The background of introducing the legal provision of this case

On October 8, 1990, the first priority provision for teachers of national and public schools [Article 11 (1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 4304 of Dec. 31, 1990)] of those who entered the National University of Education (hereinafter referred to as the "National Education Act") was decided as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. After the amendment of Article 11 (1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 4304 of Dec. 31, 1990), the teachers of national and public schools became the members of teachers of public schools through open screening by the amendment of Article 11 (1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 4304 of Dec. 31, 1990).

However, on March 25, 2004, the Constitutional Court decided on March 25, 2004 that the provision of the above examination rules limits the opportunities for applicants who are competing with the above to take public office, so it is unconstitutional (Supreme Court Order 2001Hun-Ma82 Decided March 25, 2004).

Thus, in order to protect the trust of students and graduates who have been enrolled or enrolled in school with trust in various additional points for a limited period of time, the provision of this case was introduced by Law No. 7223 on October 15, 2004.

(b)the legitimacy of the objectives;

In the case of teacher training, the curriculum of the college of education is more specialized than that of the non-colleges of education, and it is necessary to attract excellent human resources in the college of education aiming at the establishment of the unique purpose of the training of teachers, and the legal provision of this case is legitimate in light of the following: (a) the introduction of the employment examination system requires more human resources who wish to teach the school through the introduction of the appointment examination system, and (b) the appointment examination is completed at a general university without any need to enter the college of education; (c) the appointment examination is prepared; or (d) the appointment examination is conducted by the appointment examination institute, etc. rather than faithful to the curriculum within the college of education, etc., rather than

(C) Appropriateness of the means

Considering that the regional colleges of education have the role as a regional educational development organization as well as teachers' training, the protection and fostering of regional colleges of education is a foundation for the faithful development of educational institutions and curriculum by publicly announcing the educational foundation in the region, and thereby, it is a foundation for developing the overall capabilities of teachers in the region. Therefore, in the reality where the existence of the regional colleges of education is threatened with the regional additional points system, the additional points system in this case should be a reasonable method taking into account the poor budget situation and sudden changes in the educational environment.

(D) The minimum extent of the infringement

According to the legal provisions of this case, the appointment authority is bound to give additional points to those who have completed the college of education within the limited scope of 10/100 of the full score of the primary examination. In light of the degree of points allocated, the final successful candidates in the recruitment examination for teachers are determined by the highest score of the combined primary examination marks and secondary examination marks. In addition to the instant additional points, there are multiple additional points (number of uniforms, additional major points, computer ability additional points, English ability additional points, English ability additional points, and addition points to physical education subjects), and the instant legal provisions also provide additional points to those who have completed the college of education until the open screening process publicly announced in 2005 is announced in 2010. In full view of the fact that the degree of infringement is excessive so that the number of existing students in the college of education can receive additional points only until the open screening process publicly announced in 2010.

(E) Balance of legal interests

In order to achieve the legal provisions of this case, the state or society’s interest cannot be less than the disadvantage that applicants from non-offenders suffer, and the state also has the responsibility to believe such additional points system and to protect the trust of students enrolled in the college of education or graduates who entered the college of education. Thus, since the additional points system of this case is applied temporarily in order to coordinate the interests of both parties, such as the process of introduction of the legal provisions of this case, it can be deemed that the additional points system of this case has satisfied the balance of legal interests.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the legal provision of this case is unconstitutional because it infringes the right to equality and the right to participate in official duties is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Ho (Presiding Justice)