Today’s Hearing on Injunction Request for ‘Medical School Expansion’... Legal Circles Say "High Possibility of Dismissal"

"Failure to Meet Requirements Such as Disposability, Party Standing, and Necessity"

The hearing for the injunction request against the increase in medical school admissions filed by the Council of Professors from 33 medical schools nationwide against the Ministers of Health and Welfare and Education will be held on the 14th.

Medical staff are conversing at Seoul National University Hospital in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@

The Seoul Administrative Court, Administrative Division 11 (Chief Judge Kim Jun-young), will hold a hearing at 3:30 PM on that day for the injunction request filed by representatives of the Council of Professors from 33 medical schools nationwide against the Ministers of Health and Welfare and Education regarding the decision to increase medical school admission quotas.

An injunction is a measure that temporarily suspends the effect of an administrative disposition when it is recognized that irreparable harm may occur due to the disposition, until the conclusion of the main lawsuit (such as a cancellation lawsuit).

In this case, the Council of Professors applied for an injunction along with a lawsuit requesting the cancellation of the decision to increase medical school admission quotas. Since it will take a considerable amount of time until the cancellation lawsuit is finally confirmed, the court will determine the necessity of the injunction by examining whether the damage the plaintiffs may suffer in the meantime can be compensated afterward.

The Council of Professors argues that the Minister of Health and Welfare does not have the authority under the Higher Education Act to decide university admission quotas, so the decision to increase the medical school quota by 2,000 is invalid. Therefore, the subsequent measures taken by the Minister of Education, who was notified of the increase decision by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, are also invalid.

They also claim that the increase decision is unconstitutional as it violates the constitutional principle of due process because it did not involve any consultation with the interested parties, such as medical school professors, residents, and medical students.

The key issues in the injunction hearing are expected to be the ‘dispositional nature’ of the administrative lawsuit, the ‘standing’ of the parties involved, and the ‘necessity’ of the injunction.

In the legal community, the prevailing view is that the likelihood of this injunction request being granted is low. For an injunction or provisional disposition to be accepted, the main lawsuit must be possible in the first place, but there are many views that the main lawsuit itself is improper due to lacking the requirements for litigation.

First, the government’s announced plan to increase medical school admissions is likely only at a preparatory stage without concrete ‘dispositional nature,’ so it may not be recognized as suitable for litigation.

Moreover, the government’s announcement does not directly affect the rights of medical school professors, unlike a license suspension for doctors, so the likelihood of recognizing the plaintiffs’ ‘standing’ is low, which is another reason why dismissal is highly anticipated. Dismissal means rejecting the application or ending the lawsuit without substantive examination due to lack of litigation requirements.

Shin Hyun-ho, a medical law specialist and representative lawyer at the joint law office Haewool, predicted, “The 2025 medical school increase is a policy announcement rather than a concrete exercise of public authority, so it lacks dispositional nature. Also, medical school professors do not appear to have standing to seek direct legal benefits from any government action, so it is highly likely to be dismissed for lacking litigation requirements.”

He also said that even if the litigation requirements are met, it would be difficult to recognize the ‘necessity’ of the injunction, so the injunction request is likely to be dismissed.

Lawyer Shin stated, “Even if the medical market collapse claimed by medical school professors actually occurs due to the government’s measure, the professors may suffer ‘reflexive disadvantages’ but not ‘legal disadvantages,’ so it is unlikely that they have legally enforceable rights. If legal rights are unlikely to be recognized, the occurrence of ‘irreparable harm,’ which is a consideration when deciding whether to grant an injunction, is also likely to be denied.”

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