Supreme Court's First Ruling: Guardians Must Not Unjustly Intrude or Interfere with Teachers' Educational Activities

Court: "Teacher's educational activities must be respected... Requests for homeroom teacher changes should be supplementarily allowed"

The Supreme Court has made its first ruling that educational activities judged by teachers while educating students should not be infringed upon or unfairly interfered with by students or their guardians. While parents and guardians can express opinions regarding education and should be respected, this must be done in a manner that respects the professionalism and authority of teachers.

The Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Lee Dong-won) on the 14th overturned the lower court's ruling that favored parent A in a lawsuit filed against Principal B to cancel the disciplinary action by the Teacher's Rights Protection Committee, and sent the case back to the appellate court with a ruling in favor of the defendant.

In 2021, A's child, who was in the second grade of elementary school at the time, misbehaved during class. In response, homeroom teacher C placed the child's name next to a red card on the blackboard and made the child clean for about 10 minutes after school. Subsequently, A and their spouse repeatedly demanded the replacement of the homeroom teacher to the principal for a considerable period starting from that day after school and filed multiple complaints with related agencies. During this period, they also refrained from sending the student to school for a certain time.

Teacher C submitted a report on the infringement of educational activities stating that they suffered severe stress and significant mental shock due to A's infringement activities and complaints, requesting that further infringement activities and complaints be stopped. After deliberation by the Teacher's Rights Protection Committee, a measure was taken recommending the cessation of repeated unfair interference, which was deemed an infringement of educational activities. A then filed a lawsuit.

The first trial court ruled against the plaintiff, stating, "The recommendation is merely a 'recommendation' that cannot enforce compliance, and the public interest in protecting teacher's rights cannot be considered less significant than the disadvantages A may suffer." In contrast, the appellate court focused on the disciplinary action taken by C against A's child. The appellate court ruled in favor of A, stating, "It is clear that publicly revealing the name of a child who does not comply with discipline to classmates, thereby opening the possibility of ostracism, and forcibly assigning cleaning labor is an infringement on the child's human dignity, and such acts should not be allowed or tolerated in educational settings."

However, the Supreme Court's judgment was different. The Supreme Court held that the judgment made by a teacher in the process of educating a student should be respected unless there are special circumstances.

The court stated, "Parents' opinions that the educational methods of the teacher in charge of the class are inappropriate and that they wish for a replacement can be considered opinions that can be presented to the principal, who has personnel authority. However, excluding a teacher from homeroom duties during the semester greatly damages the teacher's honor and is a disadvantageous personnel action. Even if there is a problem with the homeroom teacher's educational methods, if the problem can be resolved by changing the educational methods, it is desirable to try that approach first."

It continued, "It is reasonable to view that parents repeatedly demanding the replacement of the homeroom teacher without just cause and proper procedures should only be allowed supplementarily in exceptional situations where the homeroom teacher cannot be expected to perform their duties properly."

A Supreme Court official said, "This ruling is the first to establish the legal principle that the professionalism and authority of teachers are guaranteed by the Constitution and laws, and that professional and broad discretion exercised by qualified teachers in their judgments and educational activities should not be infringed upon or unfairly interfered with."

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