호봉정정거부처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting the correction of the salary grade, which was made to the Plaintiffs on March 14, 2016, is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiffs have passed and employed a competitive recruitment examination for career positions implemented by the defendant pursuant to Article 28 (2) 6 of the State Public Officials Act, and have worked as a protective public official in the A Office Management Office.
B. “Special career document screening and interview planning” applied by Plaintiff B on May 8, 2006 is as listed in attached Table 2. ② The public announcement of “career-based public official recruitment examination for career positions” applied by Plaintiff C and D on November 201, 2013, “A office career competition recruitment document screening plan”, and “career-based public official recruitment examination plan” are as listed in attached Table 3. ③ The public announcement of the “career-based public official recruitment examination for career positions” applied by the rest of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Plaintiff E, etc.”) on November 4, 2014 and the “A office-based public official recruitment examination plan” are as listed in attached Table 4.
C. Plaintiff B was employed on July 3, 2006, Plaintiff C, and D on December 20, 2013, and Plaintiff E, etc. on December 20, 2014, respectively.
The Plaintiffs asserted that “the private career was not included in the salary class or the career of working for a public institution, etc. was not reflected in the salary class,” and filed an application for the correction of the salary class with the Defendant on January 29, 2016.
(A) On March 14, 2016, the Defendant sent a review of the Plaintiffs’ application for the correction of a salary class to the Plaintiffs on the ground that “A public official in a defensive post is not recognized as a similar work experience in the same field (100%) with respect to the newly employed work experience prior to employment under Article 28(2)6 of the State Public Officials Act. In the case of a State or a local government police officer recognized as a similar work experience in the same field, recognition is 80 percent in the case of a State or a local government police officer assigned for special guard of a public institution, recognition is 70 percent in the case of a work experience in a public institution or police officer assigned for special guard of a
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] does not dispute, A.