All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da38288 Decided April 22, 2010【Damages】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Establishment of a tort for invasion of freedom of religion by a private person [2] Whether mandatory school assignment pursuant to the high school equalization policy is unconstitutional (negative) [3] Method of resolution where a religious-affiliated school’s “freedom to teach religion and operate religious education programs” conflict with a student’s “passive freedom of religious activity and religious confession” due to the mandatory school assignment based on the high school equalization policy [4] Limitation to the “freedom to teach religion and operate religious education programs” by a religious-affiliated school integrated into the public education system [5] Where a religious-affiliated school provides education in the form of propagating the tenets of a religion to students who were compelled to attend the specific school based on the high school education equalization policy, the standard for determining the unlawfulness of such education [6] Where a religious-affiliated school ?when teaching subjects or holding events propagating the tenets of a religion ?does not factor in the basic rights of students with no religious belief or have different religious beliefs (such as creating an atmosphere that does not tolerate refusal of participation), the case holding that such act is unlawful as it infringes on a student’s morally-protected interest in religion, and that malfeasance is also acknowledged as such infringement can be sufficiently anticipated, and thus, avoidable [7] Elements for a school’s disciplinary measure against a student to constitute a tort [8] Elements to acknowledge unlawfulness where the failure of a superintendent of education to exercise his/her authority to order correction, change, etc. against a private school’s violation of education laws, etc. constitute a malfeasance [9] Where corrective measures taken by the Superintendent of Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education (hereinafter “Seoul Educational Superintendent”) or the competent public officer are insufficient to prevent a religious-affiliated school’s unlawful religious education or expulsion, and thus, infringes on a student’s morally-protected interest, the case holding that the Superintendent’s failure to further exercise his/her authority to order correction, change, etc. cannot be deemed as having reached the point of losing objective justification or social validity |
|
