2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,120,827 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of the application for modification of the lawsuit of this case to the day of complete payment.

A. On July 1, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant for local public officials in contractual service with the following content (hereinafter “instant employment contract”).

○ Class: Former (General Doctor) Class B in contractual service;

○ Contract Period: from July 1, 2002 to February 28, 2005

○ Affiliation: The Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Women's Protection Center located in 4-1, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "Women's Protection Center").

○ Business Affairs and Performance Plans: internal diagnosis and treatment of protective women, request for protective women's external medical institutions

○ The method of paying monthly remuneration and paying remuneration: 2,438,410 won (annual salary of 29,261,000 won, annual salary of 32,606,000 won in 203) of salary, and the method of paying allowances and paying allowances shall be governed by the Local Public Officials Regulations.

○ Evaluation of Work Performance: A regular evaluation of the plaintiff's work performance based on his/her work performance and performance objectives shall be conducted annually, and occasional evaluation may be conducted when necessary, and the final evaluation shall be conducted when the

○ Termination of a contract: If a contract falls under any subparagraph of Article 7 of the Local Contract Public Officials Regulations or is judged to be inferior as a result of work performance evaluation, an employment contract may be terminated regardless of the contract period

B. From July 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was in charge of diagnosis and treatment for patients, etc. at the women’s protection center operated by the Defendant. The women’s protection center is a vagabonds welfare facility based on Article 34 of the Social Welfare Services Act, which has 144 inmates as of August 17, 2004 and accounts for at least 90% of the patients with dementia, mental illness, etc.

C. On January 30, 2004, when evaluating the Plaintiff’s regular service performance of public officials in contractual service in 2003, the Defendant passed a resolution on the Plaintiff’s service performance rating as “D grade” in consideration of the Plaintiff’s opinion on the evaluation by the Director of the Women’s Protection Center. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a written notice of the results of the Plaintiff’s service performance assessment “ that the Defendant would reduce the Plaintiff’s remuneration by 3% on or around the 9th of the same month,” and notified the Plaintiff of an electronic document (hereinafter “instant remuneration reduction measure”), thereby reducing the Plaintiff’s remuneration by 3% from March 2004.

D. On August 24, 2004, the president of the Women’s Protection Center: (a) established measures to improve the operation of the Women’s Protection Center, including the adjustment of the class of a contracting doctor from Class B to Class A, and increase of one nursing staff; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the plan to adjust the class of a non-permanent contract worker as of October 13, 2004 to the class of a non-permanent contract worker as of March 1, 2005 (hereinafter “class adjustment plan”).

E. The defendant did not renew the above contract after the expiration of the contract of this case with the plaintiff, and the job class adjustment plan was executed as of March 1, 2005, and the defendant employed one of the non-exclusive contract workers as a Class-I doctor through the public announcement procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 3, 4, 5, 8

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(i)Invalidation of the class adjustment plan;

In the case of a women's protection center with at least 90% of the patients, even though the emergency situation may always arise, it is left that the women's protection center left the nurse to perform medical practice without the doctor by adjusting the position of the full-time contract worker as a non-exclusive contract worker, and thus, the job class adjustment plan is invalid as it violates Article 25 of the Medical Service Act. Therefore, the expression of intent to terminate the employment contract simultaneously with the job

(2) lack of legal basis for the reduction of remuneration measures

Although there is no provision that the remuneration for local public officials may be reduced under the Local Public Officials Regulations, it is invalid that the Defendant’s provision that the remuneration may be reduced due to work performance evaluation under Article 8(3) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Rules on the Personnel Management of Public Officials in Contract Service (hereinafter “Personnel Management Rules”) is in violation of the upper statutes. Accordingly, the Defendant’s instant remuneration reduction measure also has no effect.

(3) Voluntary nature of work performance evaluation result

The defendant evaluated the plaintiff's work performance in the year 2003 as "B grade", although the defendant evaluated the plaintiff's work performance in the medical field as "B grade", and evaluated the plaintiff as "B grade" based on the evaluation opinion of the Director of the Women's Protection Center who assessed the plaintiff on the basis of the individual evaluation opinion, etc." (unsatisfying the plaintiff as "unsatisfy," which is based on the evaluation results of work performance of this case based on such arbitrary evaluation results and the indication of the intention to terminate the employment contract of this case, shall be null and void.

(4) Violation of Article 24(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act

The instant remuneration reduction measure was taken through an electronic document without the Plaintiff’s consent, which violates Article 24(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, which provides that an administrative agency shall, in principle, take a disposition without the consent of the Plaintiff, not only in writing but also in violation of Article 24(1) that provides that

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether a request for nullification of an expression of intent to terminate an employment contract is legitimate

A public official in contractual service under the Local Public Officials Act refers to a public official in non-career service who is engaged in the duties that require expertise for a certain period under his/her employment contract with a local government (Article 2(3)3). According to the Local Public Officials Regulations, the head of a local government may employ public officials in contractual service within the scope of five years in accordance with his/her employment contract period within the scope of five years (Articles 5(1) and 6(1)), and if it is deemed necessary to extend the contract period due to the continuation of the relevant business or the termination of the business within the contract period due to unavoidable reasons, he/she may extend the employment period within the scope of five years (Article 6(2)), and if a certain reason exists, he/she shall terminate his/her employment contract without delay (Article 7).

In full view of the contents of the relevant laws and regulations, a public official in contractual service shall lose his status as a public official in contractual service on the grounds of the termination of the contract period or the termination of a legitimate contract, and regardless of whether the contract period stipulated in the relevant employment contract expires after the termination of the contract period and the declaration of intention to terminate the employment contract is null and void if the contract is not renewed after the contract is terminated.

In this case, as seen earlier, it is true that the contract period expires without being renewed by being notified of a plan for job classification adjustment under the name of the Director of the Women's Protection Center on October 13, 2004. However, the job classification adjustment plan is merely merely a change of the Plaintiff's class from the former class B to the non-exclusive contract class A, and it does not include an expression of intent to terminate the employment contract with the Plaintiff. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a declaration of intent to terminate the employment contract with the Plaintiff by the notification of the job class adjustment plan.

Even if viewed otherwise, in this case, where the contract period has already expired as of the date of the closing of argument in this case and has not yet been renewed thereafter, there is no ground provision that grants the obligation to renew the contract to the public officials in contractual service whose contract period has expired, such as the Local Public Officials Act or the Local Public Officials Regulations, etc., and thus, the status of the public officials in contractual service is lost as a matter of course due to the expiration of the contract period, and the status of the public officials in contractual service cannot be recovered. Therefore, the plaintiff ultimately lost the status of the public officials in contractual service, and therefore

Meanwhile, even in the past legal relations, if the current rights or legal status has been affected, and it is recognized as a valid and appropriate means to get a judgment on confirmation of such legal relations in order to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to the current rights or legal status, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of such legal relations shall be deemed to have an immediate and conclusive interest. However, in the event of termination of an employment contract with respect to a public official in contractual service, it does not constitute any limitation under the law in appointing a public official, etc., and even if a person with the power terminated prior to the expiration of the contract period acts as a public official, etc. as a disadvantageous reason to the appointment of the person with no such power, it cannot be deemed that the legal interest has been infringed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1496, Nov. 26, 2002, etc.).

In addition, as in this case, insofar as the employment period has already expired and the legal position is not restored by the result of the lawsuit, the invalidity of the declaration of intent to terminate the employment contract cannot be deemed as having the function of the remedy pursued in the lawsuit in question only with the invalidation of the declaration of intention to cancel the employment contract. If there is a direct remedy for the claim for performance, such as the right to claim the payment of the fare or the right to claim the damages premised on defamation, so long as there is a direct remedy for the infringement, the action for invalidation confirmation cannot be deemed an appropriate remedy, and as long as there is a direct remedy for the right to claim the payment of the fare or the right to claim the damages premised on defamation, another action requirement for invalidation confirmation cannot be deemed as an appropriate remedy, and as long as there is a direct remedy for the right to claim the nullification, it does not block the parties

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim to confirm the invalidity of the indication of intention to terminate the employment contract among the lawsuits of this case shall be deemed to be unlawful.

(2) Determination on the instant remuneration reduction measure

(A) Whether there are legal grounds for the reduction of remuneration

On July 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was appointed as a local public official in contractual service through a contract for employment of public officials in contractual service entered into with the Defendant, and thus, he/she is required to receive remuneration pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such

According to Article 8(3) of the Local Public Officials Regulations, which provides for the employment conditions, appointment procedures, etc. of local public officials pursuant to delegation of Article 2(4) of the Local Public Officials Act, the head of a local government may evaluate the employment status and performance of local public officials in contractual service employed on a regular or occasional basis and reflect them at the time of change, extension, or termination of a contract. According to the personnel management regulations that provide for matters necessary for the enforcement of this Decree pursuant to Article 10 of the Local Public Officials Regulations, a regular evaluation of work performance under Article 8 of the Decree shall be conducted every one year after employment, and occasional evaluation of work performance shall be conducted every time after extension, salary, or other contract terms shall be conducted at the end of the contract. The results of work performance evaluation shall be reflected in the personnel management of public officials in contractual service (Article 7(1)), such as extension and termination of contract terms, adjustment of salary amount, etc. (Article 7(5)), and in the case of a person whose work performance results are poor (Article 8(3) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City).

In full view of the contents of the above provision, “an amendment to a contract” under Article 8(3) of the Local Contract Public Officials Regulations shall include “an adjustment of the amount of salary,” and based on this provision, it is clearly stated that it is possible to adjust the amount of salary for local public officials according to the results of service performance evaluation in the personnel management rules and evaluation guidelines based on the results of service performance evaluation. Accordingly, the instant measures to reduce the amount

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that it is contrary to the superior law is without merit.

(B) Whether the results of work performance were arbitrarily conducted

The above evidence and Eul evidence and evidence No. 6-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 7-1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 8 through 11, Eul evidence No. 12-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 13-2, 14, 15, and 18, and the inquiry results on the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor Mayor, the assessment method of work performance and performance for local public officials shall be based on the method of giving points to the plaintiff according to the target 100 (the score grant method: the achievement of 100 x. 10 x. 5 x1 x1 x 6 x 9 x 3). The defendant shall not establish performance objectives, self-evaluation by the plaintiff himself, the first evaluation by the appraiser, the first evaluation by the work performance evaluation committee, and the last evaluation by the plaintiff's 203 x10 x1 / 20 m20 m21 m27, etc.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the results of the work performance evaluation for the plaintiff were lawfully conducted in accordance with the relevant statutes, and it cannot be deemed that the results of the work performance evaluation for the plaintiff were voluntarily conducted in accordance with the unfair evaluation opinion of the Director of the Women's Protection Center.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit on the premise that the instant remuneration reduction measure is not effective.

(C) Whether it violates Article 24(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act

Article 24 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that when an administrative agency takes a disposition, it shall be done in writing except as otherwise provided in other Acts and subordinate statutes, and in case of an electronic document, the consent of the parties shall be required.

However, in light of the current laws and regulations on public officials in contractual service, changes to the terms and conditions of the contract, such as remuneration reduction for public officials in contractual service, are different from disciplinary actions against general public officials, and thus, are not recognized as having the nature of disposition, etc. subject to appeal litigation, and it is understood that the State or local government is treated as a measure conducted on an equal footing as a party to the employment contract,

Therefore, in taking the instant remuneration reduction measure against the Plaintiff, who is a public official in contractual service, the Defendant does not follow the method of disposition as stipulated in Article 24(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, such as administrative disposition. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit on different premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for nullification of the declaration of intention to terminate an employment contract among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful. Thus, the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ansan-si (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-ho