Whether Article 2 of the Addenda to the Public Educational Officials Act (No. 15, 2004) which provides for the deadline for application of multiple or non-major additional points is in violation of the Constitution restricting fundamental rights, such as the right to hold public office, the right to choose occupation, the right to pursue happiness, etc. under the Constitution, or the principle of trust protection,

Article 2 of the Addenda of the Public Educational Officials Act (O. 15, 2004), Articles 10, 11(1), 13, 15, and 25 of the Constitution

Constitutional Court en banc Order 2008Hun-Ba77, 167 Decided October 29, 2009 (Hun-Gong157, 1950)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dong, Attorneys Park Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Superintendent of Education (Attorney Jeon Young-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu20576 decided April 7, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 2 of the Addenda of the Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 723, Oct. 15, 2004) (hereinafter “the Additional Points Clause”) provides for the period for application of multiple and sub-majors, which goes beyond the scope of multiple majors, shall not be deemed to violate the principle of protection of trust in the Constitution, and shall not be deemed to be in violation of the principle of protection of trust in the Constitution, and the multiple and sub-majors should be abolished because they are of a significant nature that restricts applicants excluded from the application of the principle of multiple and non-majors, and it is difficult to view the transitional provisions of this case as being subject to multiple and non-majors to protect the trust interest of applicants who completed multiple and sub-majors or those who completed the examination, and it is difficult to view that the provisions of this case were subject to multiple and non-majors prior to the establishment and application of the new provision of the new provision of this case, including the right to fill in public duties under the Constitution, freedom of occupation, and right to pursue happiness.

As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the provision of this case, which grants multiple major points on the basis of the entrance year, is in violation of the Constitution because it infringes on the fundamental rights of equality, right to hold public office, right to pursuit of happiness, etc., which are fundamental rights under the Constitution, and thus, violates the Constitution. ① Since the provision of this case was ultimately abolished, it is a legislative act conducted within a broad range of legislative discretion to protect the trust of applicants who have been aware of such provision, it cannot be said that the provision of this case’s additional points are in violation of the principle of equal rights, right to hold public office, and right to choose occupation, or violates the principle of proportionality. ② If the provision of additional points is determined based on the individual intention or circumstance of applicants who have been given multiple major points, it is difficult to uniformly recognize that there is no need to apply multiple major points on the ground that the provision of this case’s additional points may be applied to applicants for the examination, and thus, it is difficult to view that there is no need to apply multiple major points on the ground that there are more complicated opportunities to apply multiple major points on the examination.

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 Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)