한국과 일본의 역사 교과서 재판을 통한『교육부장관』의 검정 교과서 수정명령권 분석 = A Study on the Education Minister`s Authority to Order the Revision of the Authorized-Textbook by Analyzing the History Textbook Lawsuits in Korea and Japan

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study explores the education minister`s authority of the textbook revision order, focusing on the Korean and Japanese history textbook lawsuits. The results are concluded as follows. First, regarding whether it violates the reservation of laws, the lower court acknowledges his comprehensive authority on the order of the revision. By contrast, the supreme court points out there are some restrictions on the relevance of education and contents despite approving of him asking to revise formal parts such as typographical errors. The court`s attitude toward the revision is changing like Japan`s fastidious authorization process. Secondly, with regard to the issue on plaintiff ship of the textbook writers, if his demand for the revision is applied only to the publishers, the writers perceive there is a high probability of their thoughts, philosophies, and academic perspectives in the contents could be distorted. Therefore, the writers have legal interests to require him to counterman his order directly. Third, as for whether or not to the deficiency in the screening process of the Textbook Screening Council runs counter to the law, adopting the textbook authorization system and the screening system is regarded as one way to guarantee independence, professionalism, and political impartiality of education under the law. Nevertheless, if he has the power to demand for the formal revision such as objective error correction but also even the direct authority over the relevance of education and the written contents, it may seem to go through the new screening process. Fourth, in terms of the matter of whether the revision requirements are prescribed by Act, it is desirable that the requirements consist the five items in the amendments of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act since his arbitrary discretionary authority must be subject to certain restrictions. However, the requirements of the revision should be specified in the amendments of the Act as the screening requirements.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "헌법재판소 1992. 11. 12.선고, 89헌마88 결정" 1992

2 "한겨레신문 2013년 1월 22일 자 사설" 2013

3 조난심, "초?중등 국정 도서의 검인정화 방안 연구" 2004

4 함수곤, "일본의 교과용도서 편찬 체제 및 개발 모형 연구" 2003

5 "일본 최고재판소 1997. 8. 29. 선고, 平成6年（オ）第1119?" 1997

6 "일본 최고재판소 1982. 4. 8. 선고, 昭和51年（行ツ）第24?" 1982

7 "일본 동경지방재판소 1989. 10. 3. 선고, 昭和59年（ワ）第348?" 1989

8 "일본 동경지방재판소 1974. 7. 16. 선고, 昭和40年（ウ）第4949?" 1974

9 "일본 동경지방재판소 1970. 7. 17. 선고, 昭和42年（行ウ）第85?" 1964

10 "일본 동경고등재판소 1994. 10. 20. 선고, 平成元年（ネ）第3428?" 1994

11 "일본 동경고등재판소 1994. 10. 20. 선고, 平成2年（ネ）第2633?" 1994

12 "일본 동경고등재판소 1986. 6. 27. 선고, 昭和57年（行コ）第38?" 1986

13 "일본 동경고등재판소 1986. 3. 19. 선고, 昭和50年（ネ）第1143?" 1986

14 "일본 동경고등재판소 1986. 3. 19. 선고, 昭和49年（ネ）第1773?" 1986

15 "일본 동경고등재판소 1975. 12. 20. 선고, 昭和45年（行コ）第53?" 1975

16 노기호, "일본 교육법상 교육관련 당사자의 교육권 개념과 권한관계 정립에 관한 연구" 교육법학연구 16 (2) : 55 ~ 76, 2004

17 "서울행정법원 2010. 9. 2. 선고, 2009구합6940 판결" 2010

18 "서울중앙지방법원 2009. 9. 2. 선고, 2009가합7071 판결" 2009

19 "서울고등법원 2011. 8.16. 선고, 2010누31319 판결" 2011

20 "서울고등법원 2010. 8. 25. 선고, 2009나92144 판결" 2010

21 "대법원 2013. 2. 15. 선고, 2011두21485 판결" 2013

22 "대법원 2007. 1. 25. 선고, 2006두12289 판결" 2007

23 "대법원 1992. 5. 12. 선고, 91누1813 판결" 1992

24 "대법원 1988. 11. 8. 선고, 86누618 판결" 1973

25 박창언, "국정 교과서 제도의 합리성에 대한 비판적 논의:교사의 교육의 자유에 대한 법적 해석을 중심으로" 교육과정연구 21 (3) : 6 ~ 261, 2003

26 정덕기, "국가의 교육권" 韓國土地公法學會 토지공법연구 14, 2001

27 김덕근, "교육중립성 관련 검정기준의 적용 지침 개발" 2013

28 박창언, "교육내용에 관한 법적 문제와 과제" 교육법학연구 16 (2) : 77 ~ 97, 2004

29 "교육과학기술부 공고 제2013-2호"

30 김덕근, "교과용도서 관련 법규 국제 비교" 2012

31 김송득, "교과서 볍률제도의 구조와 논리" 교육법학연구 8, 1996

32 김만곤,한국교과서연구재단, "검정도서 수정 보완 체제 개선 방안에 관한 연구" 2006

33 君島和彦, "敎科書裁判第1次訴訟の現狀と歷史學の論点日本の歷史敎科書" 歷史學硏究 616, 1991

34 石山久男, "敎科書裁判の問題と今日の課題" 歷史敎科書大論爭, 別冊 歷史讀本 26 (26), 2001

35 Russo, Charles J., "The Yearbook of Education Law" Education Law Association, 2004

36 Rothstein, Laura F, "Special education law" Sage Publications Longman, 2010

37 Boyle, Joseph R., "Special Education Law with Cases" Allyn And Bacon, 2001

38 Essex, Nathan L., "School Law and the Public Schools" Allyn and Bacon, 2004

39 McCarthy, Martha M, "Public school law : teachers' and students' rights" Allyn and Bacon Allyn and Bacon, 1987

40 成島隆, "?科書?定の違憲?違法性（第二次家永?科書訴訟), In 憲法の基本判例" 法??室, 1996