국ㆍ공립대학 조교의 권리보장과 법적과제

초록

Assistant instructors at national universities are classified as a distinct category of faculty and staff under the Higher Education Act and are legally responsible for assisting with matters related to education, research, and academic affairs. In addition, assistant instructors at national universities hold public-law status as public educational officials under the Public Educational Officials Act. However, although they perform regular and continuous duties necessary for university operations, such as departmental administration, student support, research assistance, accounting and document processing, and responses to civil complaints, the current legal framework and system for guaranteeing their rights do not sufficiently reflect the substantive reality of their work. This study aims to examine the legal structure and practical operational problems of the assistant instructor system at national universities and to present legal tasks for guaranteeing their rights. To this end, this study reviews the historical development of the assistant instructor system and analyzes the legal status of assistant instructors under the Higher Education Act, the Public Educational Officials Act, and labor law. It further identifies the reality that, despite their public-law status as public educational officials, assistant instructors at national universities are exposed to chronic employment insecurity due to the one-year appointment system and repeated reappointment procedures. The main findings regarding specific legal issues are as follows. First, although a statutory retirement age of sixty-two is prescribed under the Public Educational Officials Act, the subordinate Enforcement Decree limits the appointment period of assistant instructors to one year. This creates a structural inconsistency within the legal system that conflicts with the principle of status protection for public educational officials. Second, the Supreme Court has denied the direct application of the conversion rule to indefinite-term employment under the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees by characterizing the working relationship of assistant instructors at national universities as a public-law appointment relationship. However, this judicial reasoning has limitations in that it fails to sufficiently consider the reality that assistant instructors perform regular and continuous duties. Third, although it may be difficult to directly apply the private-law doctrine of legitimate expectation of renewal due to the special nature of public-law appointment relationships, institutional control mechanisms are necessary to ensure the fairness and predictability of reappointment procedures, especially in light of the established practice of repeated reappointments. Fourth, assistant instructors at national universities are also excluded from or restricted under the current payment system for overtime allowances and performance bonuses. As a result, reasonable compensation for their actual working hours and job performance is not sufficiently provided. In conclusion, guaranteeing the rights of assistant instructors at national and public universities goes beyond merely improving individual working conditions. It is a fundamental task of redefining their legal status and role within the public educational official system. Accordingly, it is necessary to repeal or amend the one-year appointment provision under the Enforcement Decree on the Appointment of Educational Public Officials, institutionalize objective criteria for reappointment review and formal appeal procedures, establish employment stability measures such as a long-term appointment system, and improve the current payment system for overtime allowances and performance bonuses. These institutional reforms constitute important legal tasks not only for guaranteeing the rights of assistant instructors at national universities but also for securing the stability of university administration and enhancing the quality of higher education.

키워드