Whether Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act is unconstitutional (negative)

Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act prohibiting collective action by a public official is a violation of Article 11, Article 21, Article 21 of the Constitution, Article 31 (4), Article 33, Article 37 (2), or Article 37 (2) of the Constitution, which violates Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act.

Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act, Articles 11(1), 21, 31(4), 33 and 37(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

Supreme Court Decision 90Do957 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1104), 90Do961 delivered on July 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 1640), 90Do618 delivered on July 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1829), 90Do1394 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong190, 2224), 90Do2477 delivered on December 26, 1990 (dong)

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

Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of the school foundation

Msan District Court Decision 90Na244 delivered on August 17, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the petitioner.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant, etc. are examined.

According to the arguments, the respondent was dismissed by applying Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act to the applicant, but Article 66 (1) of the above Act is in violation of the Constitution, so the dismissal disposition of this case based on this is null and void.

However, Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act provides that the right to equality under Article 11 of the Constitution, media, publishing, assembly, and association Article 21 of the Constitution, the provision guaranteeing the autonomy of education under Article 31 (4) of the Constitution, Article 33 of the Constitution, or the provision violating Article 37 (2) of the Constitution shall not be deemed an unconstitutional provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do332, Apr. 10, 1990; 90Do957, Jun. 26, 1990). Thus, there is no reason to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)