Whether Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 55 and Article 58(1)4 of the Private School Act are unconstitutional (negative)

Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act which prohibits collective action of public officials does not violate the provisions that guarantee equality rights, freedom of assembly and association, autonomy of education, expertise, neutrality, etc. under the Constitution, and Article 55 of the Private School Act which provides for the grounds for dismissal and Article 58 (1) 4 of the State Public Officials Act which provides for the basic right to work of workers, Article 33 (1) of the Constitution which provides for the basic right to work of workers, Article 37 (2) of the Constitution which is the general provision on statutory reservation, Article 11 (1) of the Constitution which is the provision on equality.

Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act, Articles 55 and 58(1)4 of the Private School Act, Article 11(1), 21(1), 31(4), 33(1) and 37(2) of the Constitution

Supreme Court Decision 90Do618 delivered on July 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1829) 90Do1356 delivered on September 11, 1990 (Gong1990, 2114) 90Da8909 delivered on August 27, 1991 (Dong) 89Hun-Ga106 delivered on July 22, 1991 (Gong11893, 26 pages)

Applicant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Jinsung High School (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Msan District Court Decision 90Na220 delivered on August 17, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the petitioner.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act prohibiting collective action by public officials does not violate the provisions of guaranteeing equal rights, freedom of assembly and association, autonomy of education, expertise, neutrality, etc. under the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do1356, Sept. 11, 1990; 90Do618, Jul. 24, 1990).

In addition, Article 55 of the Private School Act and Article 58 (1) 4 of the Private School Act that provides for the grounds for dismissal under Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act shall not violate Article 33 (1) of the Constitution that provides the basic right to work of workers, Article 37 (2) of the Constitution, which is the general provision on the reservation of law, and Article 11 (1) of the Constitution on equality (see Constitutional Court Order 89Hun-Ga106, Jul. 22, 1991). The argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)