이 논문은 2004년 지방교육재정교부금법 개정을 둘러싸고 제기된 의무교육비 부담 주체에 관한 논쟁에 대하여 지방자치단체 일반회계 전입금제도의 역사적 배경 및 성격과 의무교육비 국고부담의 성격에 대한 고찰을 통해서 그 논리의 타당성을 평가한 연구다. 본 연구의 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다.
서울특별시의 주장과 달리 정부 수립 이후 줄곧 국고가 의무교육비를 전액 부담해온 것은 아니었고, 중등교원 봉급전입금제도는 재원확보의 수단으로서 의미를 가지며, 서울특별시가 부담하고 있는 일반회계 전입금은 재원조정과정의 산물임을 밝혔다. 또한, 무상의무교육을 헌법에 규정하였다고 해서 그 부담 주체가 국고라는 의미는 아니며, 봉급전입금재원은 서울시의 배타적 재원이 아니므로 시ㆍ도세 전입금에 통합한 것이 자주재정권을 침해한 것이 아니고, 서울시의 평등권을 침해한 것도 아니다.

[닫기]

The purpose of this study is to testify the validity of the insistence of Seoul Metropolitan City[SMC] that 2004's revision of Local Educational Grant Act was against the Constitution. To accomplish the purpose, this study reviewed the history and the nature of transfer system that transfers educational expenses from general account of local government to special account for local educational expenditure, and the national responsibility system that bears the compulsory educational expenses.
Major findings of the study are as follows. First, from time of government establishment to now, all expenses of compulsory education were not shouldered by central government. Second, transfer system of secondary teachers' salary didn't mean the responsibility of paying teachers' salary but the strategy for raising educational resources. Third, the resources that SMC has transferred educational expenses were not resources of SMC but resources of Seoul Educational Authority. Fourth, local government as well as central government can bear the expenses for compulsory education, according to educational financing laws. Fifth, if local government project is moved to central government, the resources for the project also should be moved from local government to central government. Finally, the differences of the transfer ratio among local governments are not against the right of equality of the Constitution, because the transfer ratio was drawn from the bearing ability of educational expenses.

[닫기]