Seoul High Court Dismisses and Rejects Appeal for Suspension of Medical School Expansion...Government Policy Gains Momentum

A suspension of execution request filed by medical school professors, residents, and medical students to halt the enforcement of the 'decision to increase and allocate 2,000 medical school quotas' against the government was once again dismissed or rejected by the court. As a result, the government's policy to increase medical school quotas has gained momentum.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

On the 16th, the Administrative Division 7 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judges Gu Hoe-geun, Bae Sang-won, Choi Da-eun) dismissed the appeal against the suspension of execution request filed by 18 individuals including examinees, medical students, residents, and medical school professors seeking to halt the enforcement of the policy to increase and allocate 2,000 medical school quotas. The court ruled, as in the first trial, that the medical school professors, residents, and medical school preparatory students were not direct parties to the case but merely third parties, and thus dismissed their requests.

On the other hand, regarding the requests from current medical students, the court recognized their standing as applicants and the urgent necessity to prevent harm, but dismissed the request on the grounds that the public welfare of medical reform through increasing medical school quotas was more important.

The court stated, "In the case of the medical student applicants, according to relevant laws such as the Constitution, the Framework Act on Education, the Higher Education Act, the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, and university establishment and operation regulations, the learning rights of medical students are guaranteed. However, there is a possibility that special circumstances exist where the enforcement of this disposition effectively blocks participation opportunities in existing educational facilities, thereby limiting equal access to educational facilities," thereby recognizing the applicants' standing.

Furthermore, the court noted, "There is a risk of harm occurring to the medical student applicants, which is of a nature difficult to recover from, and there is an urgent necessity to prevent this."

However, regarding the balancing of public interest, the court concluded, "Although the urgent necessity to prevent irreparable harm such as infringement of the learning rights of medical student applicants can be acknowledged, suspending the enforcement of this disposition would significantly affect the public welfare of medical reform through increasing medical school quotas. It is necessary to uphold the latter even at the expense of the former. Therefore, this request does not meet the substantive requirements for suspension of execution."

This case was filed together with an administrative lawsuit by medical school professors, university hospital residents, and medical students against the Ministers of Health and Welfare and Education, seeking to cancel the increase of 2,000 medical school quotas for the 2025 academic year. Suspension of execution refers to a court decision to temporarily halt the enforcement or continuation of administrative procedures when a cancellation lawsuit against an administrative disposition is filed.

Previously, the Seoul Administrative Court, which handled the first trial, dismissed the suspension of execution request itself, questioning the 'standing of the parties.' Dismissal means ending the trial without examining the merits when the lawsuit does not meet procedural requirements or the claim is not subject to judgment. For the same reason, seven out of eight suspension of execution requests filed by the National Association of 33 Medical School Professors (Jeonui Gyohyeop), medical school professors, residents, medical students, and examinees at the Seoul Administrative Court were consecutively dismissed.

However, during the hearing on the 30th of last month, the appellate court pointed out, "If no one is recognized as having standing, it means that when the state increases medical school quotas, there is no one to challenge it, implying that such state decisions cannot be judicially reviewed or controlled," raising the possibility of a different conclusion from previous courts.

The court ordered the government to submit additional materials related to the increase in medical school quotas. The government submitted a total of 49 documents, including agenda items and minutes from the Health and Medical Policy Deliberation Committee (Bojungshim), and results from the subordinate Medical Personnel Expert Committee. After the government's submission, a dispute arose between the government and the medical community over whether these materials could be considered as grounds for the quota increase discussions.

In response, Lee Byung-chul, the attorney representing the medical school professors, stated, "We will do our best to prepare for the Supreme Court re-appeal process."

However, even if a re-appeal is filed, it is physically difficult for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling by the end of this month, so it is expected that the decision on whether to increase medical school quotas this year will be determined based on this ruling. Each university must finalize the quota by reflecting the medical school recruitment numbers in the 2025 academic year early admission guidelines by the end of this month.

Nonetheless, Attorney Lee said, "The Supreme Court is the highest court responsible for protecting fundamental rights and has the final review authority over government administrative dispositions, so we expect the re-appeal case to be heard and finalized before May 31." This means that given the seriousness and urgency of the matter and the well-known issues, the Supreme Court is likely to promptly hear and decide the case.