[1] In a case where “private teaching institutes” are functioned as “private teaching institutes” under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons even if it falls under the former Libraries and Reading Promotion Act, whether the latter’s law is applicable (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that where more than 10 students have continued to teach language, etc. for more than 30 days at a facility reported as "reading center" under the former Library and Reading Promotion Act, it constitutes "private teaching institute" requiring registration under Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the former Libraries and Reading Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 8029 of Oct. 4, 2006) [see current Article 2 subparag. 4(a)], Article 5, Article 2 subparag. 1(b) and Article 6(1) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons; Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons / [2] Article 2 subparag. 1 and 2 of the former Libraries and Reading Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 8029 of Oct. 4, 2006) [see current Article 2 subparag. 4(a)], Article 5, Article 2 subparag. 1(b) and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 2005No2710 Decided March 31, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The main text of Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (hereinafter “Private Teaching Institutes Act”) provides that “private persons teach students, at least the number of teaching days (including where the number of teaching days becomes at least 30 days by repeating the teaching course; hereinafter the same shall apply) in accordance with the teaching curricula (including where the number of teaching days becomes at least 30 days; hereinafter the same shall apply) for at least 30 days, or provide facilities as learning places for at least 30 days, which do not fall under any of the following items, and Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the same Act provides that “library” refers to a facility.

However, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Library and Reading Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 8029 of Oct. 4, 2006; hereinafter “former Library Act”) provides that “library” refers to facilities which contribute to cultural development and lifelong education, such as information utilization, investigation, research, study, culture, etc. by collecting, arranging, analyzing, preserving, and accumulating library materials and providing them for use by the public or specific persons.” Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Library and Reading Promotion Act provides that “reading center” refers to a reading facility of a scale that is smaller than the standard of library under Article 5 of the same Act, although it performs the general purpose and function of a library.”

In full view of these provisions, even if “reading center” under the former Library Act is a library, if it functions as a “private teaching institute” under the Private Teaching Institutes Act beyond the general purpose and function as a library, it shall be subject to the Private Teaching Institutes Act.

In the same purport, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of the crime of this case on the ground that the defendant's continued to teach more than 10 middle and high school students through advertisements for not less than 30 days without being registered with the competent authority as a private teaching institute, constitutes the act of establishing and operating a private teaching institute and a private teaching institute under the Private Teaching Institutes Act, the defendant's report to "reading center" in accordance with the provisions of the former Library Act does not necessarily exclude the provisions of the Private Teaching Institutes Act, and that the private teaching institute must not necessarily be for profit-making purposes, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, the misapprehension of the legal principles, or the principle of equity in the application of the law,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)