[1] Whether a disposition is legitimate solely on the ground that an administrative disposition violates the provisions of internal guidelines, etc., by deeming that the disposition conforms to the requirements prescribed in the internal guidelines, etc. (negative)

[2] Whether a fixed-term teacher qualified under Article 21(2) [Attachment 2] of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act may be eligible for secondary school regular teachers (class 1) (affirmative)

[1] Even if an administrative disposition is in violation of the internal guidelines without legal nature, it does not necessarily mean that the disposition is unlawful solely on the ground that it conforms to the requirements stipulated in the internal guidelines, etc. It does not necessarily mean that the disposition is legitimate. The legality of the disposition is not whether it conforms to the requirements stipulated in such internal guidelines, etc., but should be determined on the basis of the relevant laws and regulations with legal nature

[2] Article 21(2) [Attachment 2] of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act lists those who have obtained a license as regular teachers in middle and high schools (class 1); and those who have obtained a master’s degree at the educational graduate school or the graduate school education and designated by the Minister of Education (Class 1) with a license as regular teachers in middle and high schools (class 2). Here, “educational career” refers to a career as a full-time teacher in a middle and high school (Article 8(1)1 of the Decree on the Qualification Examinations for Teachers).

Meanwhile, in principle, a middle and high school shall employ a principal, an assistant principal, a advanced skills teacher, and a teacher as “school teacher” (Article 19(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), a teacher working for a middle and high school falls under a public educational official (Article 2(1)1 and Article 2(3)1 of the Public Educational Officials Act), and a teacher subject to the Public Educational Officials Act includes a fixed-term teacher (Article 10-3(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act).

In light of the language, content, purport, etc. of the relevant statutes, it is reasonable to interpret that the qualifications of secondary school regular teachers (class 1) shall not be distinguished from those of regular teachers and fixed-term teachers under Article 21(2) [Attachment 2] of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In so doing, it is reasonable to interpret that a fixed-term teacher does not enjoy the same legal status as that of regular teachers, but may only partially affect the calculation of salary class related to benefits.

[1] Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 19 (1), 21 (2) [Attachment 2] of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Article 8 (1) 1 of the Decree on Qualification Examinations for Teachers, Article 2 (1) 1 and (3) 1 of the Public Educational Officials Act, and Article 10-3 (1) of the Public Educational Officials Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2011Du10584 Decided September 12, 2013 (Gong2013Ha, 1800) Supreme Court Decision 2011Du29281 Decided November 28, 2013 (Gong2014Sang, 69)

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Roon, Attorneys Noh Sung-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Education (Law Firm branch, Attorneys Hong U.S., et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu62267 decided March 13, 2015

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if an administrative disposition is in violation of the internal guidelines without legal nature, it does not necessarily mean that the disposition is unlawful solely on the ground that it conforms to the requirements set forth in such internal guidelines, etc. It does not necessarily mean that the disposition is legitimate. The legality of the disposition shall not be determined on the basis of the relevant statutory provisions, such as laws binding on the general public, rather than on the basis of whether it conforms to the requirements set out in such internal guidelines, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du29281, Nov. 28, 2013)

The former Working Manual on Qualification for Teachers in 2013, which the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology created for the performance of duties related to the qualification of secondary school teachers (Grade 1), provides that “only incumbent teachers may be acquired (non-fixed-term)” in relation to the qualification standards for secondary school teachers (Grade 1), but this restricts “qualification standards for regular teachers (Grade 1)” as a matter that is not directly related to the duties of the qualification examination for teachers without delegation of statutes. Furthermore, the instant provision cannot be deemed to be external binding only because it has the nature of the internal guidelines of the administrative organization as a business practice rule within the administrative agency.

Therefore, even if the Defendant refused to apply for the issuance of qualification certificates for secondary school regular teachers (class 1) under the instant provision, the legality of the disposition should be determined based on the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Educational Officials Act, and the Decree on Qualification Examinations for Teachers at the time of the disposition, rather than

2. A. Article 21(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides that “A teacher shall be classified into regular teachers (class I and II), assistant teachers, specialized counselors (class I and II), librarians (class I and II), vocational teachers, vocational teachers, health teachers (class I and II), and nutrition teachers (class I and II), and they shall meet the qualification standards referred to in attached Table 2 and obtain a certificate of qualification examined and granted by the Minister of Education, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” The above [Attachment II] list those who have obtained a certificate of qualification as regular teachers (class I and II), and who have received education at a graduate school or a master’s degree as designated by the Minister of Education with a certificate of qualification as regular teachers at a secondary school (class I and II), or those who have received a master’s degree of education at a graduate school or a master’s degree as designated by the Minister of Education (Article 8(1)1 of the Decree on the Qualification Examinations). The term “education experience” in this context refers to those who have worked as full-time teachers at a middle school, high school, etc.

Meanwhile, in principle, a middle and high school shall employ a principal, an assistant principal, a advanced skills teacher, and a teacher as “school teacher” (Article 19(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), a teacher working for a middle and high school falls under a public educational official (Article 2(1)1 and Article 2(3)1 of the Public Educational Officials Act), and a teacher subject to the Public Educational Officials Act includes a fixed-term teacher (Article 10-3(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act).

B. In light of the language, content, purport, etc. of the relevant statutes, it is reasonable to interpret that the qualifications of secondary school regular teachers (class 1) shall not be distinguished from those of regular teachers and fixed-term teachers under Article 21(2) [Attachment 2] of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In so doing, a fixed-term teacher does not enjoy the legal status of fixed-term teachers, such as regular teachers, but may only affect the calculation of salary classes related to benefits.

(1) Since the above [Attachment 2] does not distinguish regular teachers from fixed-term teachers, it cannot be deemed that the fixed-term teachers are qualified as regular teachers (class 1) only. According to the qualification standards for regular teachers (class 1), the provisions of the Presidential Decree on Qualification Examinations for Teachers, which define the meaning of “educational career” required in subparagraph 1 of the above [Attachment 2], are not treated differently as fixed-term teachers.

(2) A teacher shall endeavor to improve his character and quality as an educator (Article 14(2) of the Framework Act on Education), and shall endeavor to continuously research and cultivate his or her position (Article 38(1) of the Educational Officials Act). As such, the quality of education may be guaranteed when he or she faithfully fulfills his or her roles and responsibilities based on the teacher’s expertise. The higher qualification certificate system aims to improve the quality of education by improving the teacher’s duties or qualities accumulated in educational experience in each school for a given period. In light of the purport and character of such “qualification system,” it cannot be deemed that the subject of qualification certificate is limited only to a regular teacher who is subject to secondary school teachers (class 1).

(3) A fixed-term teacher system was introduced to ensure the stability of the curriculum operation through the establishment and operation of various curriculum and smooth supply and demand of teachers. A fixed-term teacher, in principle, has served as a temporarily appointed human resources to temporarily supplement regular teachers, but has served without any difference from regular teachers, such as performing teaching staff in reality. Thus, it is not different from regular teachers in that a fixed-term teacher whose educational experience has been accumulated for a certain period should improve his/her ability to perform his/her duties or qualities, thereby improving the quality of education.

3. While the part of the original adjudication, which was based on the premise that the provision of this case constitutes an order under the laws and regulations, the lower court’s conclusion that the disposition under the provision of this case, which was based on the premise that only regular teachers can be qualified as secondary school teachers (class I), is unlawful, is acceptable as it is in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine. In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on qualification standards for regular teachers

4. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

[Attachment I] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)