2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. Qualification of the plaintiffs

(1) On March 2, 1983, the Plaintiff, who was enrolled in the college of education at Jeonbuk-do, a national university on February 22, 1990 and was enrolled in the list of candidates for the appointment of teachers at the office of education at Jeollabuk-do around that time, and was serving military service from February 8, 1984 to July 3, 1986, who was enrolled in the college.

(2) On March 2, 1984, the plaintiff Nam-gu entered the college of education at Jeonbuk-do University, and graduated from the college on February 22, 1988, and around that time, registered on the list of candidates for appointment of teachers at the office of education at Jeollabuk-do, Jeollabuk-do, and served military service from March 7, 198 to July 31, 191, 191 after graduation from the university.

(3) On March 2, 1983, the Plaintiff Jeong-dong entered the college of education at Jeonbuk-do University, and graduated from February 22, 1990, and around that time, registered on the list of candidates for appointment of teachers at the office of education at Jeollabuk-do, Jeollabuk-do, and served military service from February 1, 1985 to September 30, 1987, when attending the university.

(4) On March 2, 1980, after entering the college of education at the former North Korean University, the Plaintiff’s literature was assigned to the branch of education at the college of education on March 29, 1981, and was registered in the register of candidates for the appointment of teachers at the Office of Education at the Office of Education at Jeollabuk-do around that time, and was serving military service from January 13, 1983 to March 28, 1985, while attending the university.

(5) On March 2, 1983, after entering the National Ethical Education Department of the previous North Korean University and graduating on February 22, 1990, the Plaintiff had been registered on the list of candidates for the appointment of teachers at the Office of Education of Jeollabuk-do around that time, and had military service from December 4, 1985 to March 17, 198 when attending the university.

(6) On March 2, 1981, the Plaintiff had entered the college of education at Jeonbuk-do, and graduated from the college of education on February 23, 1987, and around that time, was registered in the list of candidates for the appointment of teachers at the office of education at Jeollabuk-do, which was enrolled in the register of candidates for the appointment of teachers, and was serving military service from October 17, 1981 to December 21, 1982.

B. However, the plaintiffs were employed as teachers under the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 4304 of Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same) that was in force at the time when they did not perform their military service, or as a result, military service was rendered on Oct. 8, 1990 by the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 11(1) of the above Act, they were not employed as secondary school teachers, and thereafter, they were not employed preferentially as secondary school teachers. The plaintiff's interference with the judgment of the court below was made in the Jeon Young-gu Middle Middle High School on May 9, 191, 199; the plaintiff's mother was to be in the Yan High School on Sep. 15, 1991; the plaintiff's mother was to be in the Yan High School on Sep. 15, 1991; and the plaintiff's Shin Young-young was to be in the middle school on Sep. 14, 2000.

C. In order to relieve those performing the duty of military service who suffered relative damage following the above decision of unconstitutionality, the Plaintiffs filed an application for registration with the Defendant for non-permanent appointment of teachers related to the performance of the duty of military service pursuant to the Special Act on the Employment of Non-Appointment of Teachers related to the Performance of the duty of military service enacted on May 31, 2005 (hereinafter “Special Act on Appointment”), from June 7, 2005 to June 14, 2005 (Article 3(1) of the Special Act on Appointment).

D. However, since the Defendant is currently appointed as a teacher in a private school, it does not constitute “unqualified teacher in relation to the performance of military service” under Article 2 of the Special Act on Appointment because the Plaintiffs are currently appointed as a teacher in a private school. On the ground of the foregoing, the Defendant issued a disposition not to approve the appointment of a teacher in relation to the performance of the military service (hereinafter

[Grounds for recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6 and 7, and Gap evidence No. 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs interpret Article 2 of the Special Act on Appointment as "a person who is not appointed as a teacher on October 8, 1990 according to the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 11 (1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act" as "a person who is not appointed as a teacher on the ground of the above Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 11 (1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act". However, the defendant argues that the defendant erred by misapprehending that the plaintiffs' act does not constitute "a person who is not appointed as a teacher on the ground that he is currently employed as a private school teacher

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) Details of the enactment of the Special Act on Appointment

Article 11(1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act provides that a person who intends to be a public educational official shall be employed prior to a person who graduated from or completed a national or public teachers' college, college of education, or other teachers' training institution (hereinafter referred to as "national or public teachers' college, etc."). In a constitutional complaint against Article 11(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act on October 8, 1990, the Constitutional Court decided that the above provision, which provides that a person who was enrolled in a national or public college of education shall be employed prior to a national or public school teacher who is a public educational official, should be employed as a public educational official, is limited or deprived of the opportunity for the person who would be a public educational official to be employed as a public educational official. Ultimately, such discrimination is inconsistent with the principle of equality under the Constitution because it is not reasonable to justify such discrimination, and thus, the above provision was unconstitutional due to the establishment of a national or public teachers' college of education and a person who could not be appointed as a national or public school teacher prior to May 31, 20005.

(2) Issues of Article 2 of the Special Act on Appointment

However, Article 2 of the Special Act on Appointment defines the term “unappointedd teachers related to the performance of the duty of military service” as “persons who were already employed as private school teachers following the procedure for employing private school teachers after the decision of unconstitutionality of the Constitutional Court on October 8, 1990,” and does not explicitly stipulate that the term “unappointedd teachers related to the performance of the duty of military service” should be excluded from “unappointed teachers related to the performance of the duty of military service”. Accordingly, in order to grasp the meaning of the above language and text, it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the appointment of national and public schools and the special employment of the Special Act on Appointment as well as the provisions of the Special Act on Appointment.

(3) Provisions of the legislation on the appointment of teachers

(a) Qualification of teacher

According to Article 21 (2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, teachers are divided into regular teachers (class I and II), assistant teachers, specialized counselors (class I and II), librarians (class I and II), vocational teachers, health teachers (class I and II), and nutrition teachers (class I and II). According to the classification and classification and classification of schools, a certain qualification standard is set and a person corresponding thereto is a person who has obtained a certificate of qualification examined and granted by the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development under the Decree on the Qualification Examinations for Teachers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13282, Feb. 1, 1991). According to Article 3 of the former Decree on the Qualification Examinations for Teachers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13282, Feb. 1, 1991), the literature delivery Minister provides that a person who has passed a qualification examination shall be awarded a teacher qualification certificate determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources, and Article 52 of the Private School Act provides that the qualifications of private school teachers shall be determined by

(b) Employment of teachers;

Article 53-2 (1) of the Private School Act provides that teachers of various levels of schools shall be appointed and dismissed by the relevant school juristic person or private school manager, and the appointment and dismissal of teachers of a private school established and operated by a school juristic person or a private school manager which is a juristic person shall be subject to a resolution by the board of directors on the recommendation of the head of the relevant school. Meanwhile, with respect to national and public school teachers established and operated by a private school manager, according to Article 11 of the former Public Educational Officials Act which is ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, the new appointment of teachers shall take precedence over those who have graduated from or completed national and public colleges of education, etc. In the new appointment of teachers, Article 11 of the amended Public Educational Officials Act provides that teachers shall be newly appointed through an open screening, and the term "public educational official" in Article 2 (1) provides that "public educational institution" means teachers who work for an educational institution and those who have been dismissed from their position or temporary retirement or dismissal from office under Article 2 (2) of the Early Childhood Education Act or Article 2 (2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

(4) Special employment of a person who has completed registration of non-commissioned to serve in the military under the Special Act on Appointment

Article 2 of the Special Act on Appointment means a person who was unable to be appointed as a teacher on or before October 7, 1990, and was registered in the list of candidates for appointment of teachers prepared by City/Do educational committees. However, as to Article 11 (1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act amended by Act No. 3458, Oct. 8, 1990; the Constitutional Court did not appoint as a teacher on or before October 8, 1990; and the year of enrollment in the list of candidates for appointment of teachers is later than that of the same person (excluding those who were paid or removed due to non-performance of the duty of military service due to non-performance of the duty of military service; or those who were registered in the list of candidates for appointment of public educational officials under the provisions of Article 11 (1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act which was amended by Act No. 3458; and the person who was registered in the list of candidates for appointment of teachers or public schools under the provisions of the same Act shall be deemed to be subject to deliberation within the same year.

(5) Sub-committee

Article 11(1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act was enacted to relieve unreasonable damages arising from the performance of the duty of military service due to the decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court of this Court, and Article 11(1) of the same Act provides that there are many differences in status, such as persons with authority to appoint public and private school teachers, and personnel exchanges among them, and private school teachers under the former Public Educational Officials Act do not constitute public educational officials. Article 11(1) of the same Act provides that a person who graduated from or completed a national or public college of education prior to October 7, 190 and was planned to be appointed as a teacher in the list of candidates for new appointment prepared by City/Do educational committees, and thus, Article 2 of the Special Act on Appointment does not provide that “a person employed by the Plaintiffs who had not been appointed as a teacher in a public school under the Special Act on unconstitutionality of Article 11(1) of the former Public Educational Officials Act shall not be deemed to be a person employed by the Plaintiffs as a teacher in a public school.”

Therefore, in applying Article 2 of the Special Act on Appointment, the disposition of this case which the defendant erred in interpreting and applying the Act on the ground that the plaintiffs' non-commissioned officers related to the performance of the duty of military service under the above provision are illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with all of them accepted.

Judges Jeong Ho-nam (Presiding Judge)