RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      헌법재판소 판례상의 교원 간 차별의 합리성 인정 범위

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      국문 초록 (Abstract)

      본 연구의 목적은 헌법재판소 판례상의 교원 간 차별의 합리성 인정범위를 분석하는 것이다. 본 연구의 주요 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 헌법재판소는 교원 간 차별의 합리성 여부를 심사함에 있어서 자의금지의 원칙만 적용하고 기본권 제한요건의 충족여부를 심사하지 않았는데 일부 판례들의 경우 이 요건 중 피해의 최소성 요건과 내용요건을 충족시키지 못하고 있다. 둘째, 헌법재판소는 직접 차별과 간접 차별을 구분하려는 시도를 보이지 않고 있는 데 앞으로 이에 대한 재검토가 필요하다. 끝으로, 헌법재판소는 국공립학교 교원과 사립학교 교원 간의 차별의 경우 신분관계의 차이를, 초중등교원과 대학교원 간의 차별의 경우 직무의 차이 및 자격요건의 차이를 본질적 징표의 결정 기준으로 주로 인용하고 있으나 그 타당성에 한계가 있다.
      번역하기

      본 연구의 목적은 헌법재판소 판례상의 교원 간 차별의 합리성 인정범위를 분석하는 것이다. 본 연구의 주요 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 헌법재판소는 교원 간 차별의 합리성 여부를 심사함...

      본 연구의 목적은 헌법재판소 판례상의 교원 간 차별의 합리성 인정범위를 분석하는 것이다. 본 연구의 주요 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 헌법재판소는 교원 간 차별의 합리성 여부를 심사함에 있어서 자의금지의 원칙만 적용하고 기본권 제한요건의 충족여부를 심사하지 않았는데 일부 판례들의 경우 이 요건 중 피해의 최소성 요건과 내용요건을 충족시키지 못하고 있다. 둘째, 헌법재판소는 직접 차별과 간접 차별을 구분하려는 시도를 보이지 않고 있는 데 앞으로 이에 대한 재검토가 필요하다. 끝으로, 헌법재판소는 국공립학교 교원과 사립학교 교원 간의 차별의 경우 신분관계의 차이를, 초중등교원과 대학교원 간의 차별의 경우 직무의 차이 및 자격요건의 차이를 본질적 징표의 결정 기준으로 주로 인용하고 있으나 그 타당성에 한계가 있다.

      더보기

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      The major purpose of the study is to analyze the scope of rational discrimination between educators in the Korean Constitutional Court cases. The major findings are as follows. First, the court used the anti-arbitrary-discrimination principle in both discrimination between the public school teacher and the private school teacher and that between the elementary, middle, and high school teacher and the college professor. In terms of the dual measurement which the court suggested this use seems to be inappropriate but this dual measurement has weak points so the court's use of the anti-arbitrary-discrimination principle is not wrong.<br/>
      Second, the court did not distinguish direct discrimination from indirect discrimination nor use different measures for these two discriminations. It seems to result from the fact that the court decided almost every decision before the law distinguishes the former from the latter.<br/>
      Third, the court usually used the difference in the legal status in the case of discrimination between the public school teacher and the private one and the difference in the job and qualifications in the case of discrimination between the elementary, middle, and high school teacher and the college professor, as the criteria for deciding the essential sign.<br/>
      Fourth, I agree with the restriction on the giving of the salary after retirement to the dismissed public servant because there is no discrimination between the public school teacher and the private one. I also agree with the prohibition of the private school teacher union since the student had few right to private school choice. However, I disagree with the exclusion of the private school teacher from the beneficiary of the state service, the layoff of the private school teacher with very negative evaluation, and the tenure system for the private university professor because of arbitrary discrimination and no satisfaction with the least restriction principle and the content requirement considering the similarity of the job between the public school teacher and the private one and the publicity of education.<br/>
      Last, I agree with the reduction in the retirement age because of the difference in the level of the job capacity between the elementary. middle, and high school teacher and the university professor and the restriction of the public school teacher's political activity since the student has no offci activity. However, I al measurement to cope with the teacher's political activity. However, I disagree with the ban for holding both the board member of education and the teacher and the tenure system for the private university professor because of arbitrary discrimination and no satisfaction with the least restriction principle and the content requirement.
      번역하기

      The major purpose of the study is to analyze the scope of rational discrimination between educators in the Korean Constitutional Court cases. The major findings are as follows. First, the court used the anti-arbitrary-discrimination principle in both ...

      The major purpose of the study is to analyze the scope of rational discrimination between educators in the Korean Constitutional Court cases. The major findings are as follows. First, the court used the anti-arbitrary-discrimination principle in both discrimination between the public school teacher and the private school teacher and that between the elementary, middle, and high school teacher and the college professor. In terms of the dual measurement which the court suggested this use seems to be inappropriate but this dual measurement has weak points so the court's use of the anti-arbitrary-discrimination principle is not wrong.<br/>
      Second, the court did not distinguish direct discrimination from indirect discrimination nor use different measures for these two discriminations. It seems to result from the fact that the court decided almost every decision before the law distinguishes the former from the latter.<br/>
      Third, the court usually used the difference in the legal status in the case of discrimination between the public school teacher and the private one and the difference in the job and qualifications in the case of discrimination between the elementary, middle, and high school teacher and the college professor, as the criteria for deciding the essential sign.<br/>
      Fourth, I agree with the restriction on the giving of the salary after retirement to the dismissed public servant because there is no discrimination between the public school teacher and the private one. I also agree with the prohibition of the private school teacher union since the student had few right to private school choice. However, I disagree with the exclusion of the private school teacher from the beneficiary of the state service, the layoff of the private school teacher with very negative evaluation, and the tenure system for the private university professor because of arbitrary discrimination and no satisfaction with the least restriction principle and the content requirement considering the similarity of the job between the public school teacher and the private one and the publicity of education.<br/>
      Last, I agree with the reduction in the retirement age because of the difference in the level of the job capacity between the elementary. middle, and high school teacher and the university professor and the restriction of the public school teacher's political activity since the student has no offci activity. However, I al measurement to cope with the teacher's political activity. However, I disagree with the ban for holding both the board member of education and the teacher and the tenure system for the private university professor because of arbitrary discrimination and no satisfaction with the least restriction principle and the content requirement.

      더보기

      목차 (Table of Contents)

      • 요 약
      • Ⅰ. 서론
      • Ⅱ. 법 앞의 평등권
      • Ⅲ. 헌법재판소 판례 요약
      • Ⅳ. 헌법재판소 판례 분석
      • 요 약
      • Ⅰ. 서론
      • Ⅱ. 법 앞의 평등권
      • Ⅲ. 헌법재판소 판례 요약
      • Ⅳ. 헌법재판소 판례 분석
      • Ⅴ. 결론 및 제언
      • 참 고 문 헌
      • Abstract
      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼