승진후보자명부 무효확인 등 청구의 소
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Of the instant lawsuits, the Defendant’s primary claim against the Republic of Korea.
1. The reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes again in the trial, and modification of the "preliminary claim" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance to "preliminary claim" as "preliminary claim", and therefore, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. On the grounds delineated in the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the lower court’s failure to conduct a general examination for promotion against the Plaintiff on May 31, 2018 (hereinafter “instant failure disposition”) issued by the Defendant Court Administration on May 31, 2018 is null and void as the Plaintiff’s assertion has significant and apparent defects arising from the assessment of abuse of discretion by the person holding the discretion.
1) The Plaintiff, unlike the promotion candidates of Grade V other than the promotion candidates of Grade V, has performed his/her duties in good faith, and thus, the Plaintiff’s attitude of service, degree of work performance, etc. are monthly and evaluated during the period of work performance rating (from July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017) during the second half of 2017 (hereinafter “instant rating”).
(2) The Plaintiff’s overall list of candidates for promotion reflected the results of the instant rating in the first half of the year 2017 was 1327 higher or lower than that of the first promotion candidate list in the first half of the year 2017, which was 131 higher or lower than that of the first half of the first half of the year 2017. The lower order of the first promotion candidate list in the second half of the year 2017 was 196 higher or lower than that of the first half of the first half of the year 2017. The lower order of the first promotion candidate list in the second half of the six months was 196, etc. was difficult to occur without arbitrary and abuse of discretionary power in violation of relevant laws and regulations such as court officials’ rating rules. Thus, there was a significant and apparent defect in the rating. (2) At the same time, the Plaintiff was unconstitutionally subject to the first half of the first half of the fourth promotion candidate list in the second half of the year 2018.