헌법재판소 판례상의 교원 간 차별의 합리성 인정 범위

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.

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.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 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