1. As to the grounds of appeal on the primary claim and the primary claim

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is justified in holding that the primary claim and the primary claim seeking the revocation of the disposition are unlawful on the ground that the submission of the defendant's response to the claim of this case as of March 30, 2006 by the first instance court's attorney's preparation of March 30, 2006 cannot be viewed as the defendant's disposition of rejection of promotion of class 3 or withdrawal disposition of class 3 promotion, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the existence of administrative disposition as

2. As to the ground of appeal on the second preliminary claim

A. In full view of Articles 8 and 38(1) of the Local Public Officials Act and Article 38-3 of the Decree on the Appointment of Local Public Officials, the promotion of Grade II through IV public officials shall be subject to prior deliberation by the personnel committee, based on administrative records, capabilities, career, major areas, human resources, aptitude, etc. by the appointing authority. If Grade IV public officials are determined to be subject to Grade III promotion following deliberation by the personnel committee of the pertinent local government and the appointing authority publicly announced the fact outside of the country, the public officials are legally interested in the promotion and have the right to file an application for Grade III promotion with the appointing authority.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant selected the plaintiff as the person eligible for promotion to Grade III, after selecting eight public officials of Grade IV, including the plaintiff who was a public official of Grade IV at the State position as a candidate for promotion to the Gwangju Metropolitan City Personnel Committee, and requesting that two persons eligible for promotion be selected and given to the Gwangju Metropolitan City Personnel Committee. The Gwangju Metropolitan City Personnel Committee shall comprehensively consider the career of incumbent grade on March 31, 2004, the beginning appointment date of the chief of Grade III, the degree of contribution to correction, etc., but it shall examine whether the defendant concurrently has capabilities and qualities as a manager such as policy judgment, comprehensive planning, conciliation ability, organizational leadership, etc., and then selects the plaintiff as the person eligible for promotion to Grade III. The defendant promoted the plaintiff as of April 1, 2004 to Grade III (Grade III) and dispatched the plaintiff as a local public official of Grade III at Grade III at Grade III at Grade III at Grade III, and then, ordered the plaintiff to transfer as a local public official within the authority of the President to the Republic of Korea.

As such, if the Defendant selected the Plaintiff as a person eligible for promotion following the deliberation by the Gwangju Metropolitan City Personnel Committee pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Local Public Officials Act and the Decree on the Appointment of Local Public Officials and announced it to the public inside and outside, and if he requested the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs to issue an order to transfer local public officials after obtaining a consent to transfer from the Plaintiff who was a national public official of Grade IV to promote the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have legal interest in the promotion and have the right to apply

B. Meanwhile, according to the records, the plaintiff filed a petition with the Gwangju Metropolitan City Appeal Committee for Seoul Metropolitan City on September 30, 2005 to seek a decision that "the defendant is promoting the plaintiff to be a local public official of Grade II or III." Since the Gwangju Metropolitan City Appeal Committee is established in the defendant as an organization in charge of review of a disciplinary action against a public official or other unfavorable disposition or appeal against omission (Article 13 of the Local Public Officials Act) and as long as the plaintiff filed the above appeal, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff filed an application for promotion of Grade III

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s second preliminary claim seeking confirmation of illegality in omission is unlawful because the Plaintiff did not have the right to apply for promotion, and that the Plaintiff’s claim for examination of the Plaintiff’s appeal cannot be deemed as the application for promotion against the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the right to apply for promotion and the litigation seeking confirmation of illegality in omission in preparation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below regarding the second preliminary claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)