의무교육에 대한 재학계약법리의 성립여부 판단

Judgement on applying legal principles of contract of attendance at school to compulsory education

본 논문은 사립중학교에서 발생한 학교안전사고에 대해 재학계약의 법리에 따라 채무불이행책임을 적용한 연구대상판결의 문제점에서 시작하였다. 즉 급부의무에서의 ‘의무’와 의무교육에서의 ‘의무’는 내포된 개념에서 차이가 있고, 헌법과 교육관련 법률에 따라 초등학교와 중학교는 의무교육에 해당하는데 과연 초·중학교의 재학관계를 일반적인 사법상 재학계약의 법리로 적용하는 것이 타당한지에 대한 점이다. 이에 대해 다수의 논문과 관련 법률을 바탕으로 의무교육과 재학계약의 법이론을 분석하였고, 그 결과 근본적으로 의무교육은 무상성, 재학계약은 대가성이라는 법적 성격을 가지고 있다는 점을 도출하였다. 이에 따라 초·중학교와 고등학교를 구분하여 학교안전사고에 대한 책임법리를 구성하여 판단하는 데 목적이 있다. 이러한 결과가 학교안전사고와 관련된 재판에서 실용적인 공헌이 되길 바란다.

The Supreme Court’s case on which this study focuses shows that the safety accident in a private middle school should be judged by the legal principles of contract of attendance at school and should be applied to liability for default of the school violating obligations of care for safety. Whether a school is national, public or private establishment, relationship about attending at school is not seen as a pure private judicial contract but as a special contract of attendance at school based on the Education Act. However, given the fact that the constitution and legislations related to education make elementary and middle school education compulsory, this case needs to be reconsidered in detail whether it is judged by the legal principles of contract of attendance at school. If it is, each side-school and student-has respective obligation and in terms of “obligation”, there is a difference between obligation on the contract and obligation on compulsory education. In order to figure out legal characters of respective obligation on contract and compulsory education, this study has found out legal grounds for compulsory education on the constitution and education-related legislations, and for contract of attendance at school on civil law and civil procedure act not to mention numerous dissertations. As a result, without classifying a school as national, public or private the relations about attending at school between school and student should be seen as relation on a special contract of attendance at school in the domain of education act. The school, therefore, can take liability for default only if the school dose not come under compulsory education. In other words, considering the three legal characters of compulsory education-free, compulsory, and public, it is hard to judge this case on the basis of transaction regulations. This study will hopefully make a practical contribution to trials on school safety accidents.