• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.72
• /
• pp.33-89
• /
• 2022

Recently, following the opening of the Gyeongsangnam-do Archives and the Seoul Archives, work to establish local archives management institutions in cities and provinces is being actively carried out. In this process, there is an institution directly or indirectly affected by the records management work following the emergence of metropolitan·provincial office of education records management institutions. Article 11 of the current Public Archives Act is centered on cities and provinces, such as giving only the mayor and provincial governor the duty to establish a local record management institution. When a management agency is established, only the obligation to transfer the records with a retention period of 30 years or more among the records under its jurisdiction is specified. This is not appropriate when considering that each metropolitan·provincial office of education and each metropolitan·provincial perform their own duties and roles at the metropolitan·provincial level in accordance with the Constitution and laws. Therefore, in this study, legally, institutionally and historically, the fact that metropolitan·provincial offices of education and metropolitan ·provincial are the core institutions that realize local educational autonomy and local autonomy, and are equivalent administrative agencies independently in charge of their own affairs in their respective jurisdictions. We compared and examined the need to revise Article 11 of the current Public Archives Act, which is overly composed of cities and provinces, and presented the expected effects of the establishment of local records management institutions by cities and provinces of education.