이 연구는 임용고사 가산점 항목에 대한 헌법재판소의 해석 법리를 검토하고 반론을 제기하는 과정에서 위헌결정의 타당성을 분석하고자 하였다. 헌법재판소는 가산점 항목이 법률유보원칙에 위배되며, 공무담임권을 침해하므로 실체적으로도 위헌이라고 결론을 맺고 있다. 가산점 항목은 법률적 근거가 없고, 포괄위임금지원칙을 위반하고 있음을 지적하고 있다. 사범대 가산점은 소명감 품성 전문성을 이유로 하고 있으나 이에 대한 실증적 증거가 없고 객관적 타당성이 결여되며, 능력주의에 반하는 것으로 본다. 복수자격증 가산점도 부여기준이 객관타당성이 없다고 본다. 법리에 대한 반론은 다음과 같다. 교육은 본질적으로 전문적 활동이며, 사범대학의 합목적성을 인정하고, 목적형 양성과정의 구별되는 특성과 사범계학생들의 상대적 우수성을 존중하는 기초 위에서 판단해야 함을 주장한다. 이 경우 가산점 항목은 특혜적 속성보다 보완적 성격을 지닌 것으로 이해된다. 따라서 가산점 부여는 기본권 침해의 문제이기보다 합목적적 전문적 제도운영과정에서 야기된 반사적 불이익으로 볼 수 있다고 주장한다.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the rationale of the decision of the Constitutional Court on the Additional Score Clauses in the Teacher Recruits Competition Examination System. The Constitutional Court concluded that the Clauses are anti-Constitutional Law not only in view of ‘due process’ but also in substantial aspect. ⅰ) the Additional Score Clauses is not lawfully supported. ⅱ) and It violates the principle of ‘forbidden general delegation’. ⅲ) There is not actual evidences to demonstrate the superiority and specialty of teacher college students. ⅳ) the Clauses is not resonable. ⅴ) And It violates the principle of ‘career open to talent’. The Educational Logic as the anti-thesis of the Legal Principles have the reason explanation system, that is to say, rationale of giving additional incentive score, like below. ⅰ) Education is essentially professional activity. And so, educational institution must be run according to the principle of professional running. ⅱ) Teacher college has authentic mission to realize the whole person, and so It has rationale to deserve well additional major priority among various in-service teacher training courses. ⅲ) Teacher college curriculum is different from, in many aspects, other teacher training courses. ⅳ) The comparative excellence of the teacher college students is supported by raw actual data. In conclusion, for this reason, We should accept that the Additional Score Clauses is in accordance with Constitutional Law in the substantial aspect.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the rationale of the decision of the Constitutional Court on the Additional Score Clauses in the Teacher Recruits Competition Examination System. The Constitutional Court concluded that the Clauses are anti-Constitutional Law not only in view of ‘due process’ but also in substantial aspect. ⅰ) the Additional Score Clauses is not lawfully supported. ⅱ) and It violates the principle of ‘forbidden general delegation’. ⅲ) There is not actual evidences to demonstrate the superiority and specialty of teacher college students. ⅳ) the Clauses is not resonable. ⅴ) And It violates the principle of ‘career open to talent’. The Educational Logic as the anti-thesis of the Legal Principles have the reason explanation system, that is to say, rationale of giving additional incentive score, like below. ⅰ) Education is essentially professional activity. And so, educational institution must be run according to the principle of professional running. ⅱ) Teacher college has authentic mission to realize the whole person, and so It has rationale to deserve well additional major priority among various in-service teacher training courses. ⅲ) Teacher college curriculum is different from, in many aspects, other teacher training courses. ⅳ) The comparative excellence of the teacher college students is supported by raw actual data. In conclusion, for this reason, We should accept that the Additional Score Clauses is in accordance with Constitutional Law in the substantial aspect.