교육감이 수행하는 사무 구분에 관한 판례의 비판적 분석

Abstract

Superintendents do their work not only as the supreme representative of a local government, but also as a lower institution of the central government. In the latter case, superintendents receive delegated work from the Minister of Education, who represents the central government. As for the scope of the autonomy that superintendents can exert, as well as the extent of the control by the central government, there are big differences between the two kinds of work that superintendents do. The two kinds of work are divided into state work, which is work delegated by the central government, and independent work, which is autonomous work of the superintendent’s local government. Due to the difficulty in distinguishing between the two kinds of work, there have been conflicts between superintendents and the Minister of Education. These conflicts were only recently resolved in the court system through final judicial decisions. These decisions were made based on three specific guiding principles. The guiding principles that are applied to the judicial process regarding the work of superintendents are critically analyzed in this thesis. This study analyzed almost all the judicial rulings after the mid-1990s regarding the research interest. The judicial court has developed three guiding principles to determine the work of superintendents. The work of superintendents is considered state work if (a) a law, act, or decree specifically states it is state work, (b) the central government initiated and implemented the work nationwide, or (c) the work is financed by the central government. However, there are problems associated with each of these three guiding principles. Most importantly though, the judicial decisions do not correspond with public opinion that local government should have educational autonomy.