Court Holds Hearing on Suspension of Medical School Enrollment Increase Enforcement... Legal Battle Between Medical Professors and Government Intensifies

During the hearing of the injunction application filed by medical school professors nationwide to stop the increase in medical school quotas, a tense legal battle unfolded between the Professors' Council and the government. The medical school professors' council argued that “the increase in medical school quotas would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, and the urgency to prevent this must be recognized,” while the government countered that “the government's decision cannot be considered an administrative disposition, and the medical school professors lack standing as plaintiffs, so the lawsuit should be dismissed.”

Kim Chang-su, Emergency Response Committee Chairman of the National Association of Medical School Professors (left), and legal representative Attorney Lee Byung-chul are expressing their position on the medical school enrollment increase cancellation lawsuit and provisional injunction application filed by the association against the Minister of Health and Welfare and the Minister of Education at the Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho-gu on the afternoon of the 14th.
[Photo by Yonhap News]

The Seoul Administrative Court’s 11th Administrative Division (Presiding Judge Kim Jun-young) held a hearing in the afternoon on the injunction application against the increase in medical school admission quotas filed by representatives of the Professors' Council from 33 medical schools nationwide against the Minister of Health and Welfare and the Minister of Education.

An injunction is a measure that temporarily suspends the effect of an administrative disposition when it is recognized that there is a risk of irreparable harm caused by the disposition, until the conclusion of the main lawsuit (such as a cancellation lawsuit) is reached.

In this case, the Professors' Council applied for an injunction along with a lawsuit requesting the cancellation of the increase in medical school admission quotas. Since it takes 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 is irreparable or can be remedied later.

The key issues in the injunction hearing were whether the administrative lawsuit meets the ‘dispositional nature’ requirement, the ‘standing’ of the parties to the lawsuit, and whether the ‘necessity (urgency)’ of the injunction is recognized.

The council argued that the public announcement by the Minister of Health and Welfare in February to increase medical school quotas by 2,000, which is beyond the authority granted by the Higher Education Act, is illegal and null, and that the subsequent disposition by the Minister of Education was also against the principle of due process as it did not go through any opinion-gathering procedures from stakeholders such as students, residents, and professors.

On the other hand, the government (Ministry of Health and Welfare and Ministry of Education) argued that the application should be dismissed as it is procedurally improper due to lack of dispositional nature and plaintiff standing, and even if the lawsuit requirements are recognized, the injunction should be dismissed due to lack of urgency. They also emphasized that the injunction should be promptly dismissed to prevent serious harm to public welfare.

First, the council claimed in the hearing that the government’s announcement of the medical school quota increase has ‘dispositional nature.’ The council argued, “The government’s act of sending administrative disposition notices to residents itself means that public authority has been exercised, and if there was no disposition, the government would not have needed to intervene in the first place.” In contrast, the government argued that “the medical school quota increase is merely the first step in the procedure of allocating quotas by university and is expected to be specified later,” and therefore lacks concrete dispositional nature.

Next, regarding whether the plaintiff medical professors have standing, the council cited a Supreme Court ruling on competitors under the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act to argue that the plaintiffs have standing. The government countered, “Since the subject of the medical school quota increase procedure is the university, the applicants (medical professors) do not have legal standing as plaintiffs.”

Finally, concerning the necessity (urgency) of the injunction, the council argued, “It has been somewhat proven that the medical school quota increase decision has political motives, and the national conflict is severe,” adding, “Irreparable harm to the applicants is expected, and there is urgency.”

However, the government responded, “Since the plaintiffs lack standing, they have no legally protected interest, making it difficult to assess whether the applicants suffer harm,” and “From the professors’ perspective, an increase in the number of students to teach is not a harm at all.” They further added, “The university allocation procedure is just beginning, with major steps remaining, so it is difficult to recognize urgency.”

Meanwhile, separate from this lawsuit, residents, medical students, and examinees also filed administrative lawsuits and injunction applications against the Ministers of Health and Welfare and Education to cancel the quota increase. Their initial lawsuit was assigned to the 13th Administrative Division of the same court (Presiding Judge Park Jung-dae). The injunction hearing is scheduled for the 22nd at 10:30 a.m. On that day, about 900 additional plaintiffs filed cancellation lawsuits and injunction applications, indicating that conflicts over the medical school quota increase in court are expected to intensify further.

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