Plaintiff 1 and six others (Law Firm Roon, Attorneys Noh Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

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

January 23, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap2713 decided August 21, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s refusal to issue a class 1 teacher qualification certificate against the Plaintiffs on October 30, 2013 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the following 2.3 to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Details of the judgment added;

A. The defendant's assertion

According to Article 21(2) [Attachment 2] of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Article 8(1) of the Decree on Qualification Examination for Teaching Staff, in order to obtain the first-class regular teachers of secondary schools, a person who has obtained a second-class regular teacher’s license and received a master’s degree from an educational graduate school or a graduate school education and training designated by the Minister of Education must have worked as a teacher for at least one year at a school prescribed in Article 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as a full-time teacher. Since fixed-term teachers are not regular teachers, they cannot be deemed as having worked as a full-time teacher. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, a short-term teacher, failed to meet the first-class

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, the facts of recognition of the first instance court, the evidence submitted in the first instance court, and the evidence No. 13-1 through No. 3, the whole purport of the pleadings can be seen as including not only the regular teacher’s educational experience but also the educational experience as a temporary teacher. Thus, the defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

(1) Article 8 (1) 1 of the Decree on Qualification Examinations for Teachers does not separately define the educational experience of regular teachers and the educational experience of fixed-term teachers. Thus, the meaning of “full-time career as a teacher” cannot be interpreted as limited to that of a regular teacher’s career.

② Since the prior meaning of “full-time officer” is “the person who is responsible for, is responsible for, or is responsible for, or is responsible for, the full-time officer”, it is reasonable to interpret that “the person who has worked as a full-time teacher refers to the person who has worked as a teacher without engaging in other occupation regardless of whether it is a regular teacher or a short-term teacher.” It goes beyond the literal limit to interpret it as a regular teacher.

③ In light of the fact that fixed-term teachers are in the same role as regular teachers, as well as classes, student guidance, and the details of evaluation of fixed-term teachers in the standard manual for evaluation of teachers’ competence prepared by the Ministry of Education are the same as regular teachers, there is no particular difference between regular teachers and fixed-term teachers in the evaluation of duties and duties, and there is no reason to regard the regular teachers’ educational experience and the regular teachers’ educational experience differently.

④ On August 28, 2013, the Defendant recognized the Nonparty’s work experience as a temporary teacher under Article 8(1)1 of the Decree on the Qualification Examination of Teachers as “the former work experience as a teacher,” and awarded the first class license of secondary school regular teacher, and the “2013 Teachers Qualification Manual” prepared by the Ministry of Education also includes any work experience of at least three years among the provisions of subparagraph 1 of the qualification criteria for specialized counselors (Grade 1). In light of the above, the Defendant’s work experience as a temporary teacher includes only the work experience of at least three years as a full-time (including a fixed-term teacher) from the school level corresponding to the qualification of the teacher he possessed. In light of the above, it is recognized that the Defendant’s work experience as a temporary teacher includes the work experience as a temporary teacher.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims are justified and all of them are accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)