사립학교이사장 친족의 교장취임 배제의 위헌성 (The Unconstitutionality of the Exclusion of the Chief Director’s Relatives from the Private School Principal and the Private University President)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 대한교육법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 교육법학연구 / 17권 / 1호 / 151 ~ 177페이지
· 저자명 : 손희권

초록

본 연구의 목적은 사립학교이사장 친족의 교장 취임 배제의 위헌성 여부를 검토하는 것이다. 본 연구의 주요 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 이러한 배제는 사립학교장 및 그 임용예정자를 친족이라는 사회적 신분에 따라 자의적으로 차별하는 것이며 기본권 제한의 목적 요건, 방법 요건, 그리고 내용 요건을 충족시키지 못하므로 평등권에 위반된다. 둘째, 이러한 배제는 기본권 제한의 목적 요건 및 방법 요건을 충족시키지 못하기 때문에 사립학교장 및 그 임용예정자의 직종결정의 자유를 침해한다. 셋째, 이러한 배제는 교육의 본질 실현에 기여할 수 없고 교육의 자주성의 내재적 한계나 그 제한 요건을 충족시키지 못하며 기본권 제한의 목적 요건 및 방법 요건도 충족시키지 못하므로 교육의 자주성 및 대학의 자율성에서 유래하는 학교법인의 자주적 인사권을 침해한다. 끝으로, 이 개정안은 그 시행 당시 사립학교이사장의 친족인 교장 및 그 임용예정자에 대한 경과규정을 마련하지 않았기 때문에 신뢰보호의 원칙에 위반된다.

영어초록

The major purpose of the study is to examine why the exclusion of the chief director's relatives from the private school principal and the private university president in the reauthorized Private School Act is unconstitutional. The major findings are as follows.
First, this exclusion violates the equal protection clause because it is arbitrary discrimination on the basis of social status in that the chief director's relatives do not necessarily have no the principal's and the president's competences, many of them have been socially recognized as competent principals and presidents, and they can raise educational funding from the judicial private school person easily.
Second, the exclusion of the chief director's relatives from the private school principal and the private university president violates the practicing principal's and the practicing president's freedom of vocational choice for the following reasons. First, the separation of school/ university management from academic affairs is not a valid legislative purpose because the judicial private school person should involve in academic affairs for embodying the schoo/university vision. Further, the exclusion of the chief director's relatives from the private school principal and the private university president may discourage public interest since increasing the democracy of the private school/university management is influenced by the private school principal's and the private university president's leadership, organizational culture and climate, etc., this leadership is influenced by his or her personality, not social status, and the principal and the president can affect student performance. Moreover, there are other ways to increase the democracy of the private school/university management, such as democratizing its governance structure and decision-making system. Finally, the exclusion of the chief director's relatives from the private school principal and the private university president damages him or her very seriously while there is little public interest obtained from this exclusion.
Third, the exclusion of the chief director's relatives from the private school principal and the private university president violate the judicial private school person's right to autonomous personnel management resulting from educational autonomy and college autonomy because this exclusion does not contribute to realizing the essence of education and cannot satisfy the internal restrictions for educational autonomy and the constitutional requirements for restricting educational autonomy and college autonomy.
Last, no provision to protect the practicing private school principal's and the practicing private university president's expectations for continuing the private school principalship and the private university presidentship when the reauthorized Private School Act is effective violates the confidence-protection principle for three reasons. First, the practicing private school principal and the practicing private university president have lost their justified expectations for continuing the private school principalship and the private university presidentship because of this reauthorization. Next, public interest achieved by the exclusion of the chief director's relatives from the private school principal and the private university president is not bigger than the practicing private school principal's and the practicing private university president's lost private interest. Finally, the practicing private school principal and the practicing private university president cannot expect this reauthorization during their employment.

참고자료

· 없음