<p>In times of diversity, tension, and hybridization, teachers’ day-to-day curriculum practices are further complicated when they encounter education policies with competing institutional logics. Drawing upon the ideas of competing institutional logics and teacher professional judgment, this study explores how teachers respond to the hybridization of the competing institutional logics (i.e., centralization vs. decentralization) embedded in curriculum policies and investigates the factors that influence their responses. Employing a comparative qualitative case study of four South Korean teachers, this study collected and analyzed data from interviews, observations, and document review. The findings revealed that (a) when national curriculum standards were introduced as a symbol of the hybridization of competing institutional logics, teachers' responses to these standards emerged as three distinct practices (i.e., standards-driven, standards-considered, and standards-conscious curriculum planning) and that (b) their responses, as professional judgments in their curriculum practices, were deeply engaged with their beliefs about what constitutes good and just education. The discussion highlights that the hybridization of competing institutional logics inherent in education policies allows teachers greater latitude in translating their beliefs into practice, and thus their beliefs become a more direct and powerful factor in shaping their professional judgments in daily curriculum practices.</p>