2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Since the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a local public official (administrative Grade 9) of Jeonnam-do on August 1, 1971, the Plaintiff served as a current local public official (Grade 4) through a local administrative officer of Gwangju Metropolitan City, a local administrative officer, and a national administrative officer.

B. On September 19, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for correction of the family register to the Gwangju District Court's office, and received a decision on September 19, 2007 from the above court to correct "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

C. On September 28, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for change of the date of birth on the public official private records in accordance with the correction of the above family register, and was rejected.

D. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor seeking confirmation that the failure of the Plaintiff to promote the Plaintiff to the local class-II or III Metropolitan City was illegal, and currently pending in the final appeal court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 17 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and the issues of this case

The plaintiff does not mean the retirement age based on the actual age of the public official in question, but does not mean the retirement age based on the recorded public official's private records. Thus, the plaintiff's retirement age as a public official belonging to the defendant is not based on December 31, 2008, which is the date of birth prior to the correction of the family register, but rather on December 31, 1949, which is the corrected date of birth, based on ○○, 2009, which is the corrected date of birth.

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the retirement age of the public official belonging to the plaintiff is based on the date of birth before the correction of the family register or the date of birth after the correction of the family register.

3. Determination on when and when the Plaintiff’s retirement age reaches the retirement age

(a) Relevant statutes;

【Local Public Officials Act

Article 66 (Retirement Age)

(1) The retirement age of public officials shall be as follows:

1. Public officials of Grades グ through ジ in general service:

sixty years of age, in case of Grade V or higher;

(5) In applying the retirement age under the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2), if the date on which any public official reaches the retirement age falls between January and June, he/she shall be retired ipso facto from his/her office on the 30th of June, and if between July and December, on the 31st of December, respectively.

(b) Markets:

However, the retirement age is a system that intends to prevent the aging of the public official’s age constitution and to maintain and improve the efficiency of public service by promoting the organization through a planned replacement of public officials who reach a certain age by deeming that physical and physical performance is not more efficient if they reach a certain age, and thus, the retirement age should not be determined on the basis of the biological age, i.e., the retirement age is determined on the basis of the biological age, not on the basis of the biological age.

However, there is no provision on the meaning of the date of birth which serves as the basis for calculating the retirement age, so it shall be determined according to how the plaintiff agreed on the date of withdrawal which serves as the basis for calculating the retirement age with the appointing authority at the time of appointment as a public official. Thus, with knowledge that the plaintiff's date of birth was wrong at the time of application for appointment as a public official (the plaintiff becomes aware of such fact in the process of entering middle school), the plaintiff applied for appointment as a public official with the date of withdrawal before the correction of the family register, and the appointing authority accepted it and appointed the plaintiff and accordingly manages various personnel affairs of the plaintiff on the basis of it. Thus, there was a mutual agreement with the intention to appoint as a public official on the basis of the date of birth prior to

Moreover, as seen earlier by the Plaintiff before applying for the change of the date of birth on the personal record, which is a public official after the correction of the family register on September 2007, inasmuch as it appears that there is no fact of demanding the change of the personnel record stating the date of birth on the date of birth before the correction of the family register for about 36 years after the first appointment or raising any objection, demanding an extension of the retirement age on the basis of the corrected date of birth on the family register after the correction of the retirement age on the ground that the date of birth on the family register was wrong at the time of the first 1 year and 3 months before the retirement

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal.

Judges Donsung (Presiding Judge)