Constitutional Court Rules "Excluding Military Training from Public Health Doctors' Service Period is Constitutional"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the legal provision excluding military training periods from the mandatory service period of public health doctors does not violate the Constitution. It also judged that the law stipulating that public health doctors are not paid for military training is constitutional.

On the 9th, the Constitutional Court announced that it dismissed a constitutional complaint filed by Mr. A and others regarding Article 34, Paragraph 3 of the Military Service Act by a 7 to 2 decision. Article 34, Paragraph 3 of the Military Service Act specifies that the military training period is not included in the service period of public health doctors. In contrast, specialized researchers, who are supplementary service personnel like public health doctors, are recognized as fulfilling mandatory service during military training.

Mr. A and others served as public health doctors from 2017 to 2019. They challenged the legal provision that excludes military training periods from the mandatory service period. They filed a constitutional complaint arguing that this delayed their service period and put them at a disadvantage in employment competition compared to other doctors who were exempted.

However, the Constitutional Court ruled differently. "Although it is true that Mr. A and others cannot begin training from March even if they pass the hiring process, they can engage in their profession from May after fulfilling their military service," the court said. "Excluding two months from the training period does not result in any disadvantageous treatment."

It added, "Mr. A and others claim that exempted doctors and supplementary service personnel are comparable groups, but since the fundamental factual circumstances differ, it is not possible to discuss whether there is discriminatory treatment," explaining that "there are supplementary service personnel, such as public interest legal officers, whose military training periods are not included in their service periods."

Furthermore, the court stated, "Public health doctors contribute more directly to the public interest through their duties compared to specialized researchers who sign employment contracts with research institutions and engage in research work," and elaborated, "If the military training period were included in the service period, a medical service gap of about one month would occur until April when they are assigned after completing training."

However, Justices Eun Ae Lee and Youngjin Lee dissented, stating, "Specialized researchers and public health doctors have the same role and status in realizing public value based on their expertise," and "There may be arguments that equity should be considered from the perspective of fairness in fulfilling military service obligations."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.