Court Dismisses Medical School Professors' Association's Request for Suspension of Medical School Expansion Enforcement... "Main Lawsuit Likely to Be Dismissed as Well"

A group of medical school professors' application for a suspension of execution against the Minister of Health and Welfare regarding the increase in medical school quotas was dismissed by the court.

The Administrative Court of Seoul, Administrative Division 11 (Presiding Judge Kim Jun-young) dismissed on the afternoon of the 2nd the suspension of execution application filed by 33 representatives of the National Medical School Professors' Council against the Minister of Health and Welfare and the Minister of Education concerning the decision to increase the medical school quota by 2,000 students for the 2025 academic year.

Seoul Administrative Court, Yangjae-dong, Seoul. Photo by Seoul Administrative Court

A dismissal is a decision that ends the trial without examining the merits when the lawsuit does not meet the requirements or the claim is not subject to judgment.

The court stated, "The applicants cannot be regarded as having a direct and concrete legal interest in the respective dispositions in this case, so the applicants' standing cannot be recognized," and added, "The applicants' application in this case is improper."

Previously, the applicants filed a suspension of execution application requesting that the effect of the decision by the Minister of Health and Welfare on February 6 to increase the nationwide medical school admission quota by 2,000 students for the 2025 academic year, and the decision issued by the Minister of Education on the 20th of last month to increase the nationwide medical school admission quota by 2,000 students for the 2025 academic year, be suspended until 30 days after the judgment date of the main case.

The council argued, "If the procedures related to these dispositions continue, it is clear that serious damages that cannot be compensated monetarily will occur to the applicants and the public, and if the increase in medical school admission quotas is reflected in the entrance examination system for high school students, it will lead to an irreversible situation, so there is an urgent need," and claimed, "To prevent irreparable damages to the applicants, the effect of these dispositions should be suspended."

However, the court judged that before considering whether to grant the suspension of execution application, the applicant professors themselves lack the qualification to apply for suspension of execution against the ministers' dispositions in question.

First, the court cited Supreme Court precedents on plaintiff standing in administrative litigation, stating, "Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act stipulates that 'an action for cancellation can be filed by a person who has a legal interest in seeking the cancellation of a disposition, etc.' Administrative litigation can only be filed by those who have a direct and concrete legal interest due to the cancellation of the relevant administrative disposition by the administrative agency, and those who only have indirect or factual interests cannot file such litigation. This principle also applies when determining whether the applicant has standing to request suspension of execution for the administrative disposition."

It continued, "Even a third party who is not the direct counterpart of the administrative disposition has the right to file an administrative lawsuit seeking cancellation if their legally protected interests are infringed by the disposition, and the legally protected interests here refer to individual, direct, and concrete interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations."

The court judged, "The dispositions in this case are a series of stepwise acts by the respondent Minister of Education to set the admission quotas for medical schools at each university. The direct counterparts of the quota increase allocation disposition are the 'heads of universities' who apply for the increase in medical school admission quotas and must follow the admission quotas set by the Minister of Education when determining the medical school admission quotas by school regulations. Therefore, the applicant professors of medical schools at each university cannot be considered the counterparts of these dispositions."

The court referred to the Higher Education Act and its enforcement decree, which stipulate that student quotas should be set by school regulations within the range of the number of students determined according to the university establishment and operation regulations concerning classrooms, land, faculty, and basic property for profit, and that "the medical school quota must follow the admission quota set by the Minister of Education in consultation with the heads of relevant central administrative agencies (Minister of Health and Welfare)." It also noted that the school regulations can be enacted or amended by the head of the school within the scope of laws and regulations.

The court then differentiated between applicant professors from universities that did not receive an increased medical school admission quota allocation and those from universities that did.

First, the court found, "For the applicant professors of medical schools at universities that did not receive an increased admission quota allocation, it is difficult to see that these dispositions have a direct legal effect on their status as professors."

It added, "For the remaining applicants who are professors at universities that received an increased admission quota allocation, the relevant laws and regulations, including the Higher Education Act and its enforcement decree, do not contain provisions that consider the interests of university professors regarding admission quotas, nor do they grant professors the right to conduct classes only within the currently allocated admission quotas or protect such legal interests."

Furthermore, the court concluded, "The 'right or interest to limit the medical school admission quota to provide high-quality professional medical education' claimed by the applicants cannot be regarded as a direct and concrete legal interest recognized for university professors. Even if difficulties arise in providing high-quality professional medical education to students and residents, this is a disadvantage caused by each university's educational environment and is only an indirect and factual interest, so there is no legal interest to seek cancellation or suspension of execution of the dispositions."

This decision is the court's first ruling among the suspension of execution applications filed by the medical community opposing the government's plan to increase medical school quotas.

Meanwhile, immediately after the court's decision, lawyer Lee Byung-chul, representing the Professors' Council, stated in a press release, "The dismissal decision in the first case was expected," emphasizing, "The court dismissed the case on the grounds that the standing of the 33 medical school professors as plaintiffs (applicants) was not recognized, and did not question the dispositional nature."

A lawyer in Seocho-dong commented on the court's decision, "Since the court judged that medical school professors do not have direct legal interests regarding the government's disposition, it is highly likely that the main lawsuit filed by the professors challenging the validity of the government disposition will also be dismissed due to lack of standing."

Given the nature of this suspension of execution application case, which inevitably overlaps significantly with the main lawsuit challenging the validity of the government disposition, the dismissal of the suspension of execution application due to lack of legal interest suggests a high possibility that standing will also be denied in the main lawsuit.

However, the lawyer added, "There is a possibility that the court's judgment may differ in cases where the parties to the main lawsuit or suspension of execution application are medical students or examinees."

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