해임무효확인등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “A person who has served in the court of first instance was transferred to Cmiddle School on March 1, 2009 while serving in the court of first instance”; “The plaintiff filed an appeal as Seoul High Court 2015Nu426; but the appeal was dismissed on June 25, 2015.” In addition, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act cited the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding “the decision on the plaintiff’s argument” in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's designation of an employee who is not an attorney-at-law as a litigation performer without delegation of a lawsuit against an attorney-at-law at the trial court is null and void.
On the other hand, Article 5 (1) of the Act on Litigation to Which the State is a Party provides that "the head of an administrative agency may appoint an employee of the administrative agency or an employee of a superior administrative agency to perform administrative litigation." Since it is clear that the lawsuit of this case disputing the disposition of this case by the defendant, who is an administrative agency, falls under administrative litigation, it is legitimate for the defendant to designate the employee as a litigation performer and perform
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
B. The plaintiff asserts that the revocation lawsuit of the disposition of this case (In Incheon District Court Decision 2009Guhap3501, Seoul High Court 2010Nu13311, Supreme Court Decision 201Du18564) and the lawsuit of this case are unlawful, although the subject matter of the lawsuit and the parties are different, and the lawsuit of this case do not have res judicata, the judgment of the first instance court was dismissed on the grounds of conflict with the res judicata.
In this case, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 38 and 13 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the revocation suit of the disposition in this case and the lawsuit in this case.