206Guhap1242 Revocation of Disposition of Refusal

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney X-hwan et al.

The Superintendent of the Office of Education

Y The litigation performer

March 13, 2008

May 1, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant did not conduct the second examination of selecting candidates for appointment of secondary school teachers against the plaintiff on January 27, 2006.

The passing disposition shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 3, 2005, the Defendant published an implementation plan relating to the competitive examination for appointment of candidates for public and secondary schools at Busan Metropolitan Office of Education (hereinafter “instant appointment examination”) on November 3, 2006, and the main contents thereof are as follows.

(1) Screening method

The appointment examination of this case is divided into the first examination and the second examination. The first examination is conducted by a written examination for the second subject of education and major, and the second examination consisting of an essay test, class room, interview, etc. for the successful applicant of the first examination. (2) Additional points (a) Additional points for graduates, etc. of the school-based college located in Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "regional private added points").

The three points shall be added to graduates from the Korean Teachers' University and graduates from the Busan Metropolitan City University (including graduates from high schools located in Busan Metropolitan City or graduates from the Korean Teachers' University and graduates from the Busan Metropolitan City Office of Education on February 2006), who have no teacher's career (excluding fixed-term instructors, instructors, and college assistants) (excluding graduates from high schools located in Busan Metropolitan City or graduates from the Busan Metropolitan City Office of Education).

(B) Determination of successful applicants shall be subject to two majors in the case of multiple majors and one additional major in the case of submajors, and one additional point in the case of submajors. (3) Determination of successful applicants

A successful applicant for the preliminary examination shall be determined in the order of the highest score score in the sum of the first written examination (education, majors, practical skills), college records, and additional points.

The final successful applicant shall be determined in the order of higher score in the sum of the results of the preliminary examination (including additional points and university records) and the results of the secondary examination.

B. The plaintiff graduated from the Department of Korean Language and acquired teaching qualifications. The plaintiff acquired teaching qualifications on December 2005.

4. The applicant applied for the Korean language division of the instant appointment examination and passed the first examination, and applied for the second examination from January 13, 2006 to January 17, 2006. On January 27, 2006, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff at the time of announcement of the final successful candidate, thereby making a disposition of failure against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s score is within the Korean language that selects 11th and 20th among applicants for the first examination, 16th and 16th among the applicants for the second examination, if the Plaintiff’s score is excluded from the additional points of local history and the additional points of multiple and non-majors after obtaining the points of 82.33 and 19.19.

D. On June 29, 2006, the Constitutional Court rendered a constitutional decision on subparagraph 3 and 4 of Article 11-2 of the Public Educational Officials Act, which is a basis law for multiple and sub-major premium points, to cope with the increase in the need for teachers in various curriculum areas, and its rationality and rate of additional premium points are likely to have deviates from the range of formation compared with that of other additional points. The above additional points do not have the effect of discrimination against the applicants who do not receive benefit from the above additional points, and the above additional points are not significant in terms of the effect of discrimination against the applicants who do not receive benefit from the above additional points, and the above additional points are applied temporarily in order to protect the trust of multiple and sub-majors and prospective completions, contrary to the principle of proportionality, on the ground that the above additional points do not violate the principle of proportionality, and thus do not infringe the right to official position or the right to equality of the applicants.

In addition, with respect to Article 11-2 [Attachment 2] 2 of the Public Educational Officials Act, which is a law based on the regional private interest points in the case of 2005HunGa11 on December 27, 2007, the Constitutional Court basically aims at promoting the equal development of local education and the realization of educational policies appropriate for local circumstances by attracting talented human resources as colleges of education in that region, maintaining and improving the quality of local school leaders, and guaranteeing the right to receive education through this, and the ultimate purpose of guaranteeing the right to receive education of the people is to ensure that the concentration of the metropolitan area and the large city of educational facilities and human resources is very serious and the existence of the local education colleges is threatened, and it is more necessary to strengthen the educational foundation of the region, and considering the poor budgetary situation and the realistic changes in the educational environment, the above provision of the law has to be applied to the improvement of the quality of education of the region, and there is no possibility for infringement of the local government's right to receive equal rights by the law enforcement of the local government of this case.

[Grounds for Recognition] Uncontentious facts, entry of Gap 1 through 4, fact-finding results to the Busan Metropolitan Office of Education of Busan Metropolitan City, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

It is unconstitutional to grant additional points to the holders of multiple or non-major teachers' licenses based on Article 11-2 [Attachment 2] 2, 3, and 4 of the Public Educational Officials Act, since granting additional points to the holders of multiple or non-major teachers' licenses in Busan Metropolitan City violates the Plaintiff's right to equality and right to attend a public office, the disposition of this case based on this violation is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate. The plaintiff's claim is not in violation of the Constitution as the Constitutional Court Order 2005HunGa13 delivered on June 29, 2006, and 2005HunGa11 delivered on December 27, 2007.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall have the effect of a judge.

Judges Park Jong-sung

Judges Park Gin-uri