A. Whether the main sentence of Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act violates Article 37(2) of the Constitution (negative)

(b) Whether an act of collectively participating in the Seoul Teachers' Competition, the Promoters' Competition, and the Preparatory Committee meetings to form a national teachers' association (hereinafter referred to as "full-time union") and an act of participating in collective action constitutes a labor campaign provided for in the main sentence of Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act (affirmative);

C. Whether a teacher’s failure to obey an order of the head of the school, stating that the teacher does not attend an assembly for any purpose other than legally permitted, violates the duty to obey under Article 57 of the same Act (affirmative)

(d) Whether it violates the duty to maintain dignity as stipulated under Article 63 of the same Act to collectively act, such as attending illegal assemblies to form the former mutual aid team and holding head belts and holding out relief activities (affirmative);

(e) The case holding that even if the withdrawal from the former school does not constitute a violation of the principle of trust protection, even though the plaintiff submitted a letter of withdrawal from the former school in accordance with the announcement of the Minister of Education given the withdrawal from the former school;

A. The main sentence of Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act that provides that the state public officials shall not engage in collective actions such as labor campaign, etc. shall not violate Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

(b) An act of taking the lead in attending the Seoul Teachers' Training Competition, the promoters' rally and the preparatory committee meetings to form the Korean Teachers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Teachers' Union") is an act of preparation for the formation of a trade union, which constitutes an act of preparation for the formation of a trade union, provided for in the main sentence of Article 66 (1) of the State

C. In light of the special nature of education and teachers, an order to the school principal’s teacher who does not attend an assembly for the purpose of which legal permission is not permitted is a legitimate official order issued to the teacher who shall have a full-time force on education as a supervisor. Therefore, the teacher’s failure to obey it is in violation of the duty of obey Article 57 of the same Act.

D. The act of collectively engaging in a collective action, such as attending an illegal assembly for the formation of the former school group, keeping his head belt and holding out relief, constitutes a case where he damages the body and dignity of an educator. Therefore, the above act is in violation of the duty to maintain dignity as stipulated in Article 63 of the same Act.

E. The case holding that even if the plaintiff submitted a letter of statement that he withdraws from the former school in the process of examining the appeal of the general secretary office after disciplinary action, he did not object to the fact that the plaintiff was admitted to the former school, and that he did not prepare and submit a letter of objection based on the intention of withdrawal from the former school due to truth, since he did not object to the fact that the plaintiff was admitted to the former school, and that he did not respond to the principle of trust in the process of examining the appeal of the general secretary office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's opinion to withdraw from the former school's office's office's office's office.

(a)Article 66(1)(a) of the State Public Officials Act; Article 37(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 75(1)1 of the Education Act; Article 57(d) of the State Public Officials Act; Article 63(e) of the State Public Officials Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [general]

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Do332 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1104) 90Da8893 delivered on August 27, 1991 (Gong1910, 2411) 91Nu1308 delivered on June 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 2298) 90Hun-Ba27 delivered on April 28, 1992 (No. 12131 delivered on February 14, 1992)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the Superintendent of Education

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu594 delivered on September 26, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The main text of Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act that provides that state public officials shall not engage in collective activities, such as labor campaign, does not violate Article 37 (2) of the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 90Hun-Ba27, Apr. 28, 1992). Public officials do not seem to have any reason or reason to permit collective activities, such as labor campaign, unlike general public officials. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff appeared to have been leading in the Seoul Teachers' Training Society, the NAF promoters and the Preparatory Committee. The above act of the plaintiff constitutes a preparatory act for the formation of a labor union, which constitutes a labor campaign stipulated in the main sentence of Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act, and therefore, the plaintiff's act constitutes a violation of the above provision of the Act, which provides that public officials who do not obey the above obligation of the above Article 75 (1) 1 of the State Public Officials Act shall always have the duty to maintain the quality of teachers and employees belonging to the school. According to the above provision of Article 75 (1).

The judgment of the court below is just and correct, and there is no ground for appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In the process of examining the appeal after the disciplinary action in this case, even if the plaintiff submitted a letter of explanation that he would withdraw from the former school according to the announcement of the Minister of Education (the Minister of Education at that time) that the plaintiff reflects the past mistakes and would provide relief when he withdraws from the school, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was admitted to the preceding school after the above disciplinary action was taken, and the plaintiff appeared in the late debate program of the Korean Broadcasting System and made a statement about the legitimacy of the preceding school. In the process of examining the appeal, the plaintiff did not have any consistency in making a statement about the withdrawal from the school in the process of examining the appeal at the general secretary's office, and it did not have any doubt as to whether the withdrawal from the school was due to the plaintiff's actual intention. Thus, the plaintiff's failure to receive relief in the process of examining the appeal does not reflect the fact that the plaintiff was admitted to the previous school, which is an illegal organization, and rather, it seems that the plaintiff was not prepared and submitted the above statement based on the intention to withdraw from the previous school.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)