지역의사제를 통한 필수의료인력 수급에 대한 헌법적 문제 - 독일과 일본 사례와의 비교를 중심으로 -

The shortage of essential medical personnel, particularly in medically underserved areas (rural and fishing villages), has emerged as a serious social problem in our society. To address this, the ｢Act on the Training and Support of Regional Doctors｣ was recently enacted and is about to be implemented. While the necessity of introducing such a system is acknowledged, it must be designed to minimize restrictions on the fundamental rights of regional doctors and implemented in a way that enables the securing of essential medical personnel in these areas. To examine these issues, we analyzed the key provisions of the Act and its regulations and reviewed similar systems in Germany and Japan from a comparative legal perspective. Both Germany and Japan introduced similar systems before Korea. Germany implemented the regional doctor quota system (Landarztquote) at the state level. This selects up to 10% of medical school students who wish to work in underserved areas, providing them with tuition support and requiring them to work in that region for 10 years under a public law contract. Japan, starting in the 1970s, established Jichi Medical University to produce about 120 regional doctors for local service. Finding this insufficient, it introduced and implemented a regional quota system. This system selects applicants through a separate quota at regional medical schools, provides scholarships, and requires graduates to work in the designated region for 9 years. Nearly 20 years after implementation, it is understood to have shown positive effects, such as a regional settlement rate exceeding 70%. Drawing on these foreign examples, Korea has also introduced a regional doctor system that provides six years of tuition and living expense support, requiring a mandatory 10-year service period with the relevant local government. The problems of regional depopulation and shortages of essential medical personnel in local areas have become so severe they can no longer be overlooked. Therefore, the purpose and necessity of introducing this system can be acknowledged, and the protection of citizens' lives and health sought through this system can also be considered an important public interest. However, since the program raises issues concerning the restriction of fundamental rights—such as the freedom of occupation and the freedom of movement—for regional doctors selected through this special track who are compelled to serve for 10 years in the designated area, this article argues for the legitimacy of such restrictions. Even if this system is constitutionally justified, it must be designed to minimize restrictions on the fundamental rights of regional doctors. Therefore, legislative improvements and further discussion are needed regarding issues such as restrictions on specialty selection, the 10-year service period, the possibility of selecting candidates outside the quota, and consequences for non-compliance (such as repayment of subsidies). Additionally, future discussions should address financial measures to implement this system.