특별채용 거부 처분 취소 및 부작위 위법 확인 청구의 소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is to be stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this case is to be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following addition of the judgment as to the assertion that the practice of special appointment of public schools was established, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs as having the right to apply for special appointment of public schools.
2. The Plaintiffs asserts to the effect that, in the event that a private school is closed, the practice of special recruitment of teachers working for the private school has been established, the Plaintiffs have the right to apply for the special recruitment of public schools.
In order to establish an administrative practice to the extent that the disposition agency is unable to take any measure contrary to the disposition in accordance with the principle of trust protection with respect to a specific matter in administrative legal relations, there is objective fact that the same disposition with respect to the matter has been made for a considerable period of time, and there is an intention not to take such a disposition in any special circumstance with the knowledge that the disposition agency can take any other disposition with respect to the matter, and such intention must be expressed explicitly or implicitly.
(See Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14021 Decided June 11, 1993). Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 7, the case where a special employment was made as a public educational official according to the closure and closure of a private school from 2004 to 2010 within Jeollabuk-do, but there was no case where a special employment was made since 201, and on the other hand, there was no case where a special employment was refused since 2002, it cannot be known that the relevant information was not produced, and it was abolished since 2011.