The Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal for a private high school teacher to serve concurrently as a National Assembly lawmaker's aide while maintaining their school faculty status, citing a violation of the political neutrality of education.

The Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Lee Sook-yeon) announced that it has overturned the original appellate ruling in favor of the plaintiff and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court in a lawsuit filed by teacher A against the Secretary General of the National Assembly to cancel the revocation of their appointment.

Teacher A, who had worked as a private high school teacher since 2009, was appointed as a policy aide (a special government official equivalent to Grade 4 general service) to then-Open Democratic Party lawmaker Kang Min-jung in June 2020 while on employment leave.

However, in October of that year, the Secretary General of the National Assembly revoked teacher A's appointment as an aide, stating that "an individual cannot simultaneously hold the status of a school teacher, who is bound by a duty of political neutrality, and the status of an aide, who is not bound by such a duty."

Article 65 of the State Public Officials Act stipulates that "public officials shall not engage in the formation of or join political parties or other political organizations, and shall not engage in activities supporting or opposing specific political parties or individuals in elections."

Private school teachers are also prohibited from engaging in such political activities, as regulations concerning national and public school teachers are applied mutatis mutandis to their service.

Conversely, National Assembly chiefs of staff, aides, and secretaries are not subject to these restrictions.

In the lawsuit filed by teacher A to contest the revocation of appointment, the first instance court dismissed the claim, but the second instance court ruled in favor of teacher A.

The second instance tribunal judged that when a teacher leaves the educational field on employment leave to perform legislative support duties, it cannot be concluded that merely being appointed as an aide substantially infringes upon the political neutrality of education.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that this appellate judgment was incorrect and that the revocation of the appointment was justified.

The Supreme Court stated, "Appointing a person to serve as a lawmaker's aide—whose core duty is politics—while maintaining a leave of absence status as a private school teacher required to uphold political neutrality, involves holding mutually incompatible positions from the perspective of political neutrality," adding, "It is reasonable to view this as undermining the political neutrality of education."

The court explained that the duties of a National Assembly lawmaker's aide are inextricably linked to political activities and political campaigns prohibited by the Private School Act and the State Public Officials Act.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that political campaigns or political activities prohibited for private school teachers "are not limited to those conducted during working hours or within educational settings."

The court also cited a Constitutional Court decision from April 2020 which, while ruling unconstitutional the provision prohibiting elementary and secondary school teachers from forming "other political organizations" due to violations of the principle of clarity, nonetheless upheld the provisions regarding "political parties," reasoning that such parties exert a significant influence on students' value judgments, thereby necessitating special conduct as educators.

In addition, the Supreme Court stated that it is difficult to view the constitutional and legal demands for political neutrality regarding teachers as being lesser for private school teachers compared to national and public school teachers.

(Photo: Yonhap News)