2. B

3. C.

4. D;

2. The superintendent of Gyeonggi-do office of education;

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Preliminary claim: The Minister of Education revokes the rejection of the recommendation to promote the principal of the school on September 1, 2014 against plaintiffs A, B, and C.

A. Plaintiff A is an assistant principal of the Gwangju E Elementary School; Plaintiff B is an assistant principal of the High F Elementary School; Plaintiff C is an assistant principal of the Ansan G Elementary School; Plaintiff C is an assistant principal of the Goyang G Elementary School; and Plaintiff D is a person who works for Si Heung Middle School Teachers.

(b) Determination of suspension or suspension of personnel affairs;

1) The Plaintiffs acquired a master’s degree at a graduate school university (hereinafter “ graduate school”), and according to the audit’s results by the Board of Audit and Inspection that a graduate school grants a degree due to an abnormal academic management, such as granting credits to the mother and child circulation due to reduction classes, the Defendant Minister of Education requested the graduate school to revoke the Plaintiffs’ degree, and requested the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Superintendent of the Office of Education to withhold employment based on the premise of the Plaintiffs’ master’s degree acquisition until the measures related thereto are completed, and accordingly, the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Superintendent of the Office of Education withheld the personnel (e.g., promotion and qualification training) on June 7, 2013.

2) Accordingly, the relevant persons, including the Plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition of withholding personnel affairs (U.S. District Court 2013Guhap6153), filed an application for the suspension of validity of the instant disposition of withholding personnel affairs (U.S. District Court 20130686). On August 6, 2013, Suwon District Court rendered a decision suspending the validity of the instant disposition of withholding personnel affairs until the pronouncement of the instant case is rendered. The instant case is currently pending.

C. Progress of appointment of the plaintiffs

1) Plaintiffs A, B, and C applied for the promotion of the principal, and Plaintiff D’s assistant principal, respectively, in the regular teachers’ training staff of September 1, 2014 (hereinafter “regular personnel”), and Plaintiff D applied for the promotion of the principal and assistant principal. The year 2014, prepared by Defendant Gyeonggi-do Superintendent of the Office of Education, also in the list of candidates for promotion of the principal, Plaintiff A and C were ranked 49 and 175, and the year 2014, prepared by the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Jeollabuk-do, was ranked 33 in the list of candidates for promotion of the principal, and the order of promotion of Plaintiff B was ranked 71 in the list of candidates for promotion of the assistant principal, which was prepared by Defendant Gyeonggi-do Superintendent of the Office of Education.

2) 92 persons who were promoted from the instant regular personnel group to the principal in Gyeonggi-do, 49 persons who were promoted to the principal in Jeollabuk-do, and 138 persons who were promoted to the assistant principal in Gyeonggi-do, and all the plaintiffs were not promoted.

D. The Plaintiffs filed a petition review on the disposition to exclude the Defendant’s principal from the recommendation to promote the principal and the disposition to exclude the assistant principal of the Defendant Gyeonggi-do superintendent of education. However, on December 11, 2014, the Teachers’ Appeal Committee dismissed all of the Plaintiffs’ petition review on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not have the right to file an application for promotion under the laws and regulations or cooking on whether or not the appointment of principal is made by the Defendant Minister and that the Defendant Gyeonggi-do superintendent of education is not subject to examination.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 8, 11, Gap evidence No. 13-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to Plaintiff A, B, and C’s primary claims and Plaintiff D’s primary claims

A. Determination on this safety defense

1) Main Safety Defense and Determination by Defendant Minister of Education

A) The assertion

Since there is no right to request the appointment of plaintiffs A, B, and C as principal, the act of the President who did not appoint the above plaintiffs as principal does not constitute a rejection disposition under the Administrative Litigation Act.

B) Determination

If an administrative agency’s refusal to take action upon a citizen’s affirmative filing of an application constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, the filing of the application must be an exercise of public authority or a similar administrative action, and the refusal must cause any change in the applicant’s legal relationship, and the citizen must have the right to request the exercise of the action (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu14036, Jul. 10, 1998; 2007Du1316, Oct. 11, 2007). Moreover, the existence of the right to request the recognition of the disposition of refusal is determined abstract by examining, in particular, the applicant’s refusal to take into account who is the applicant’s right in accordance with the interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations, and the applicant’s refusal to take action does not mean the right to accept the application beyond the mere response to the application. Thus, the determination of the rejection of the application should be based on an individual’s refusal to take part in the appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da16016.

According to Article 14 of the Public Educational Officials Act, the promotion of a public educational official shall be made within three times the number of persons to be promoted in the order of priority in the list of candidates for promotion. The appointment of a new principal in Gyeonggi-do on September 1, 2014 shall be made within 91 persons to be promoted, 49 persons to be newly promoted, and 33 persons to be promoted in Jeollabuk-do on the list of candidates for promotion of the principal in Gyeonggi-do, and the order of promotion of plaintiffs A and C on the list of candidates for promotion of the principal in Gyeonggi-do was 49, 175, respectively, and 33 persons to be promoted in the list of candidates for promotion of the principal in Jeollabuk-do. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the appointment of plaintiffs A, B, and C, who were eligible for promotion within three times the number of persons to be promoted on the list of candidates for promotion, shall have the authority to request reasonable and fair examination in accordance with the requirements and procedures prescribed by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, the appointment of the Minister of Education shall not be subject to appeal.

2) Main safety defense and determination by Defendant Gyeonggi-do Superintendent of the Office of Education

A) The assertion

The superintendent of the office of education of the defendant Gyeonggi-do is merely a withholding of the promotion of the plaintiff D and cannot be deemed to refuse the promotion, and there is no administrative disposition seeking the cancellation of the plaintiff D.

B) Determination

On June 7, 2013, the court received an application for the suspension of the validity of the instant personnel deferment disposition after the instant personnel deferment disposition was issued by the court. The Defendant Gyeonggi-do Superintendent of the Office of Education did not promote Plaintiff D from the regular personnel of the instant case to the assistant principal on September 1, 2014. According to the above facts, even though the validity of the instant personnel deferment disposition was suspended, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Superintendent of the Office of Education did not promote Plaintiff D as the assistant principal, not suspend the promotion of Plaintiff D’s promotion, but refuses the appointment. Accordingly, the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Superintendent of the Office of Education’s main safety defense that there is no disposition seeking the cancellation of the disposition is without merit.

B. Whether the rejection disposition against appointment is illegal

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Considering that the degree acquired by the Plaintiffs is legitimate, the decision to suspend the validity of the instant disposition of withholding personnel affairs is binding upon the Defendants, and there was no ground to impose unfavorable personnel disposition against the Plaintiffs, and that the Plaintiffs were not involved in the academic process of graduate schools, it is illegal that the decision to refuse to promote the President’s school principal and the disposition to refuse to promote the assistant principal of the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Superintendent of the Office of Education is unlawful as

2) Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3) Determination

A) Relevant provisions

Article 13 of the Public Educational Officials Act provides that "Promotion of a public educational official shall be based on his/her career records, results of retraining, performance records, and other capabilities that may be actually proven, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, from among the subordinate public officials engaged in the same kind of duties." Article 14 (1) of the same Act provides that "An appointment authority for a public educational official or an appointment-recommendation authority for a public educational official shall prepare a list of candidates for promotion by qualification, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, in the order of priority, as prescribed by Article 13 and Presidential Decree." Article 13 (2) of the same Act provides that "Promotion of a public educational official shall be made within three times the number of vacant positions in the order of priority in the list of candidates for promotion, or shall be recommended to be promoted within three times the number of vacant positions in the order of priority in the list of candidates for promotion." Meanwhile, Article 16 of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Educational Officials stipulates

B) According to the above provisions, among the candidates for promotion who are not subject to grounds for restriction on promotion as prescribed in Article 16 of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Educational Officials, the defendant Minister of Education, who is the person holding the right to recommend the appointment of the principal, shall evaluate career records, retraining records, performance records, other actual ability, etc., and shall request the promotion according to the order of priority determined by the list of candidates for promotion of the principal, and the President, who is the person holding the right to appoint the principal, shall respect the purport of the proposal and determine whether to promote. The defendant Gyeonggi-do superintendent of education, who is the person holding the right to appoint the assistant principal, shall also determine whether to be promoted according to the order of candidates for promotion among the candidates for promotion who are not subject to grounds for restriction on promotion. In this case, within three times the number of candidates for promotion listed in the list of candidates for promotion, the appointment of the assistant principal shall not be bound by the order of candidates for promotion in consideration of the suitability of duties, etc. on the list of candidates for promotion, but the discretionary power on promotion is equal and consistent.

C) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Health Team, the facts recognized as seen earlier, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s Education did not recommend the appointment of the principal of Plaintiff A, B, and C, and as a result, refused the appointment of the principal of the said Plaintiffs by the President, and the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Superintendent’s refusal of the appointment of the assistant principal of Plaintiff D was illegal as it deviates from and abused the scope of discretion.

① The promotion order of Plaintiff A and Plaintiff C, based on the list of candidates for promotion of principal A and Plaintiff C, prepared by Defendant Gyeonggi-do superintendent of education for the year 2014, is 49 and 175, and the order of promotion of Plaintiff B on the list of candidates for promotion of principal B, prepared by the Superintendent of Jeollabuk-do superintendent of education for the year 2014, falls under the order of promotion of Plaintiff D, based on the list of candidates for promotion of principal principal and Defendant Gyeonggi-do superintendent of education for the year 2014, within the three times the number of scheduled candidates for promotion of principal principal and the three times

In addition, according to Article 5 (2) of the detailed criteria for personnel management of Gyeonggi-do, appointment of a principal and an assistant principal of a public educational official shall be based on the order of high-ranking persons listed in the list of candidates for promotion of public educational officials. However, the appointment of a principal and an assistant principal of a public educational official shall be based on the order of high-ranking persons listed in the list of candidates for promotion of public educational officials. A person who is at least 60 years of age as of the date of the issuance (No. 1), a person who has acquired the assistant principal's certificate as of the date of the issuance (No. 2) and a person who has acquired the prior qualification certificate for more than one year (No. 3) and more than one year after acquiring the assistant principal's certificate as of the date of the issuance (No. 2014), if the relevant person is within three times the number of persons to be promoted, the appointment of a principal of a Gyeonggi-do, the appointment of a principal of a Gyeonggi-do, the appointment of a principal of a principal of a public educational official shall also be included in the appointment.

② The reason why the promotion of Plaintiff A, B, and C was rejected due to the appointment of appointment, and the reason why the promotion of Plaintiff D was rejected is all “the Plaintiff is an entity related to the I graduate school.” However, even if it was found ex post facto that the operation of school affairs of the I graduate school is unreasonable, it cannot be deemed that the mere fact that the I graduate school acquired a degree according to the degree of school affairs and did not actively participate in the operation of school affairs is significantly unlawful to the extent that the Plaintiff’s performance of duties as principal or assistant principal is promoted.

③ Although the court suspended the validity of the instant disposition of withholding personnel, the Plaintiffs’ refusal to promote, or refusal to promote, by excluding the Plaintiffs from the subject of the recommendation of promotion on the ground that they acquired the degree of graduate school violates the binding effect of the decision of suspending the validity of the instant disposition of withholding

(A) The Plaintiffs’ school principal or assistant principal cannot be seen as inappropriate for the Plaintiffs to perform their duties.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the disposition that excluded the Plaintiffs from promotion is unlawful as it deviates from or abused discretionary power (as long as the Plaintiffs received the primary claims of Plaintiffs A, B, and C, it does not separately determine the Plaintiffs’ preliminary claims).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the main claims of plaintiffs A, B, and C and the claims of plaintiffs D are reasonable, and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Nam Sung-woo

Judges Gin Jae-in

A person shall be appointed.