[교사임용거부처분취소][공2005.5.15.(226),756]
[1] Requirements for an administrative agency’s rejection of a citizen’s application to serve as an administrative disposition that is the subject of an appeal
[2] The case holding that where a person who has the authority to appoint teachers specially hires an appointment applicant pursuant to Article 12 of the Public Educational Officials Act, the appointment applicant has no right under the law or sound reasoning requiring the appointment authority to appoint the teacher
[1] If an administrative agency’s rejection of a citizen’s petition constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the administrative agency’s right to request the action must be the citizen. If an administrative agency does not accept a citizen’s petition without such right to request, the rejection does not affect the applicant’s right or legal interest, and it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation.
[2] The case holding that where a person who has the authority to appoint teachers specially hires an appointment applicant pursuant to Article 12 of the Public Educational Officials Act, the appointment applicant has no right under the law or sound reasoning requiring the appointment authority to appoint the teacher
[1] Articles 1 [general Administrative Disposition] and 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 12 of the Public Educational Officials Act, Article 9-2 subparagraph 2 of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials
[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13081 delivered on May 14, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1886) Supreme Court Decision 98Du8094 delivered on July 28, 1998 (Gong2000Du9229 delivered on November 22, 2002) Supreme Court Decision 200Du929 delivered on April 11, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1199), Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10936 delivered on September 23, 2003 (Gong203Ha, 2090), Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5729 delivered on September 26, 2003 (Gong203Ha, 2090).
Plaintiff (Appointed Party) (Attorney Choi Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appointed party-appellant)
Gyeonggi-do Superintendent of an Office of Education (Law Firm Filiwon, Attorneys Choi Jung-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu18301 Delivered on September 22, 2004
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).
1. If an administrative agency’s rejection of a citizen’s application constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the administrative agency’s right to request an action must be the citizen. If an administrative agency does not accept a citizen’s application without any legal basis, the rejection does not affect the applicant’s right or legal interest, and it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu13081, May 14, 1996; 98Du8094, Jul. 28, 1998; 2002Du12489, Oct. 23, 2003, etc.).
However, whether a person who has the authority to appoint teachers specially employs a person eligible for appointment pursuant to Article 12 of the Public Educational Officials Act falls under the discretion of the appointment authority, and there is no obligation for the appointment authority to specially employ the person under the authority of the appointment authority to apply for the appointment of the person eligible for appointment, and there is no right in law or sound reasoning to request the appointment of the person eligible for appointment.
In this case, the plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") have been employed as a temporary instructor at each elementary school of Gyeonggi-do under the jurisdiction of the defendant, and have been employed for not less than three years as a regular teacher's certificate, and have the qualification as a special teacher under Article 12 of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 9-2 subparagraph 2 of the Decree on the Appointment of Education Officials. A full-time lecturer who is in a position similar to the plaintiff et al. is qualified as a regular teacher, even if the defendant has been specially employed as a regular teacher, such circumstance alone does not lead to the fact that the plaintiff et al., who is only the applicant for the appointment, did not have a right under the law or sound reasoning to request the defendant to specially employ the plaintiff et al. as a teacher. Thus, even if the defendant refused the special appointment of the plaintiff et al., such refusal
The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to administrative disposition or special right to apply for employment.
The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case as different cases.
2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)