2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The plaintiffs have passed and employed a competitive recruitment examination for career positions implemented by the defendant pursuant to Article 28 (2) 6 of the State Public Officials Act, and have worked as a protective public official in the A Office Management Office.

B. ① The “satisfy-type and interview plan for the special recruitment of technical service (defy-type and interview) applied by Plaintiff B on May 8, 2006 are as shown in attached Form 2. ② The public announcement of the “satisfy-type and interview plan for the career-competitive recruitment of technical service officials” applied by Plaintiff C and D on November 201, 2013. The “satisfy-type examination for the career-competitive recruitment of technical service officials (defy-type examination)” and the “satisfy-type examination for the career-competitive recruitment of technical service public officials” are as listed in attached Form 3. ③ The public announcement of the “satfy-type recruitment for the career-based public officials” applied by the rest of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Plaintiff E, etc.”) on November 4, 2014 and the “satisfy-type examination for the career-based public officials of office office.”

C. Plaintiff B was employed on July 3, 2006, Plaintiff C, and D respectively on December 20, 2013, and Plaintiff E, etc. on December 20, 2014.

D. On January 29, 2016, the Plaintiffs asserted that “the private career was not included in the salary class or the career of working for a public institution, etc. was not reflected in the salary class,” and filed an application for the correction of the salary class with the Defendant on January 29, 2016 (the details of the application for the correction of the salary class are as shown in attached Table 5). On March 14, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiffs on March 14, 2016 that “the public official in charge of the defensive duty is not recognized as a similar field (10%) with respect to the work experience before being newly employed as a new employee under Article 28(2)6 of the State Public Officials Act.” The Defendant recognized that “the work experience of the State and the local government police assigned for special guard in the same field is eight percent in case of the work experience of the State and the local government, seven percent in case of the public institution’s work experience, and in case of the private service experience.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 2 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Table 7 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

3. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Since the plaintiffs' private work experience is "a career recognized as a related job field in a competitive recruitment examination for career positions, etc. that require a private work experience for each job type, such as Article 28 (2) 3 of the State Public Officials Act, or "a career equivalent thereto", it should be converted to 100% of the similar work experience in the same field.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Relevant statutes

Article 47 (1) 1 of the State Public Officials Act provides that matters concerning the salary, salary grade, and raise in the salary of public officials shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree, and Article 8 (2) of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations enacted upon delegation shall be defined by "the beginning salary grade of public officials" in [Attachment 15]. With regard to the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations [Attachment 15], "the conversion rate of career of public officials in general service" shall be within 100% as "the same career experience as that of public officials in the same field as that of appointment class or position in corporations, organizations, private enterprises, etc." (in cases of work experience such as the State and local governments, etc., the Minister of Personnel Management shall determine the conversion rate of career experience of public officials in the same field as that of public officials in the same field (the same type of work experience as that of public officials in the same field)" (the same type of work experience as that of public officials in this case shall be changed to 100% in the same field of work experience and the same type of work experience as that of public officials, etc.

B. Whether the instant guidelines are external binding

1) The so-called administrative rules, which are issued by a superior administrative agency on the basis of the standards for handling duties or the interpretation and application of statutes with respect to a subordinate administrative agency, are generally effective only within an administrative organization, and do not have external binding power. However, in the event that a statutory provision grants a specific administrative agency the authority to determine the specific matters of the statute and does not specify the procedure or method of exercising such authority, and the delegated administrative agency specifically determines the matters to be the contents of the statute in the form of administrative rules in the form of administrative rules, such a provision is not a general effect of administrative rules which only takes effect within the administrative organization, but not a general effect of administrative rules which does not have external binding power, but a general effect of administrative rules which grants an administrative agency the authority to supplement the specific matters of the statute, and thus, it becomes effective as an external binding legal order in combination

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du4841 Decided April 10, 2008, etc.)

2) The part concerning the calculation of the salary class of private service experience, which is set forth in the instant guidelines [Attachment 1]’s statement of career conversion rate by occupation, shall be deemed to have the effect of the instant guidelines as an external binding legal order in combination with the upper statutes, since the Minister of Personnel Management specifically determines the matters to be the contents of the statutes in the form of administrative rules according to the phased delegation in accordance with Article 47(1)1 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 8(2) of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations [Attachment 15] and [Attachment 16], and it is difficult to deem that the instant guidelines conflict with the contents and purport of the above statutes or exceeded the limit of delegation.

Therefore, whether the work experience of the plaintiffs is reflected in the definition of the plaintiffs' salary grade should be determined based on whether the guidelines of this case, which specify the contents of the public official salary regulations, meet the criteria prescribed.

C. Interpretation and application of the instant guidelines

1) Under the instant guide [Attachment 1], the career that can be recognized as a specialized private service experience is defined as “regular remuneration, full-time work experience,” and “the same field” as “the career in the same specialized field after acquiring the qualification certificate, etc., or the career in the same field without the qualification certificate, etc., which is recognized as a related field of work or a career in the competitive recruitment examination, etc., which requires the qualification certificate, etc. for each type of work, such as Article 28(2)3 of the State Public Officials Act, and which is recognized as a related field of work or a career corresponding thereto.

In addition, Article 28 (1) of the State Public Officials Act provides that the basic method of new appointment of public officials shall be determined by open competitive recruitment examination. Article 28 (2) of the Act provides that if it is inappropriate to appoint public officials through open competitive recruitment examination, a person holding a certificate of qualification for the same kind of duties shall be appointed (Article 2 (2)), a person who has worked or worked in a class or position such as the class or position scheduled to be appointed, or has worked or has worked in a position equivalent to the class or position scheduled to be appointed, or has worked or has worked in a position equivalent to the class or position scheduled to be appointed by Presidential Decree, etc., (Article 28 (3) of the State Public Officials Act provides that a person may be

2) ① With respect to the career experience (type 1) in the same specialized field after acquisition of qualification certificates, etc., the instant guidelines may be considered in the determination of salary class regardless of whether such a career experience has been required in the relevant public official recruitment examination. On the other hand, with respect to the career experience (type 2) without qualification certificates, etc., it shall be considered in the determination of salary class limited to the career experience recognized in the relevant field of work in the competitive recruitment examination, etc. which requires the relevant career experience (type 2), and the purport of the instant guidelines should be determined to consider only the career experience recognized in the relevant field of work in the competitive recruitment examination, etc. which requires the relevant type 2 as a requirement for the determination of salary class, on the premise that the entire career experience in the relevant field of work is not naturally considered in the determination of salary class (type 1) which is similar to that in the relevant field of work in the relevant case of the State Public Officials Act, it shall be considered that the number of the career experience in the relevant field of work in Article 28(2) of the State Public Officials Act should be considered only in the determination of salary class 2.

D. Whether the plaintiffs' private work experience is subject to recognition under the guidelines of this case

1) Whether it falls under Type 2

According to the purport of Gap evidence 4 and Eul evidence 4 and Eul evidence 5 and the whole purport of oral argument, ① a person who is at least 18 years of age, physical condition: a person who is at least 160cc of age, physical condition: a person who has completed military service: a person who does not fall under any disqualification under Article 33 of the State Public Officials Act (see attached Form 2); ② a person who does not fall under Articles 33 (Disqualification) and 74 (Retirement Age) of the State Public Officials Act; a person who does not fall under the qualification of a public official under Article 4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State; a person who does not fall under the qualification of a public official under Article 4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State; a person who has not been granted qualification of a public official or a person who has not been granted qualification of a public official under Article 30 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State;

According to this, since there is no "private work experience" as an applicant for a competitive recruitment examination applied by the plaintiffs, it is difficult to view that a competitive recruitment examination applied by the plaintiffs is a competitive recruitment examination that requires private work experience. Therefore, the plaintiffs' private work experience cannot be viewed as a type 2.

2) Whether it constitutes “the corresponding career”

A) We examine the records and arguments of the plaintiff B's private work experience. According to the whole purport of the evidence Nos. 3 and 5, one of the documents submitted by the plaintiff B's "functional (where there is any relevant matter)", and the "standards for the examination of document screening" requires that the applicant's qualification, work experience, etc. related to the relevant job performance be examined in writing to determine whether the applicant's qualification, work experience, etc. meet the prescribed criteria, and "the examination of document screening" should be determined as to whether the applicant's qualification, work experience, etc. is qualified or inappropriate, including his work experience (see attached Form 2), and the examination committee shall be qualified and disqualified as a public official (see attached Form 2). In an interview, the fact that the applicant's expertise and work ability can not be assessed (see attached Form 2), and the fact that only the applicant's work experience in the examination of document screening can be recognized as a result of the examination of whether the applicant's work experience in the examination of document screening is equivalent to that of the plaintiff B.

B) We examine Plaintiff C and D’s private work experience. According to the overall purport of Plaintiff C and D’s statements and arguments, the examination for Plaintiff C and D’s application is a "career recruitment examination", one of the documents to be submitted is a "career certificate (related person)", and "written examination is required to determine whether the applicant’s qualification, work experience, etc. meet the prescribed criteria" as a "written examination", and "Interview examination is required to examine the applicant’s ability and qualification necessary for performing the relevant duties (refer to attached Form 3), the fact that the interview was conducted, only the career-related person was employed in the above recruitment examination. Accordingly, the Plaintiff C and D’s private work experience can be evaluated as equivalent to type 2, such as the fact that the recognition of the applicant’s qualification, work experience, etc. affects the employment process.

C) We examine the work experience of Plaintiff E, etc.: (a) according to the overall purport of Plaintiff E’s written evidence and arguments, one of the preferential requirements for the “examination for the employment of public officials in charge of the government office building management office” applied by Plaintiff E, etc.; (b) “the career in the field related to the protection and security” is determined as the highest number of work experience in the relevant field (10 points, 6 points for a security instructor qualification, 5 points for a security instructor qualification, 4 points for informatization in the field of work management, 2-4 points for a person eligible for employment protection; (c) the fact that Plaintiff E, etc. had been asked about work experience in the interview (see attached Form 4); (d) the fact that only the career-related person was employed in the above physical examination; and (e) the fact that Plaintiff E, etc. had been employed in the above physical examination. Accordingly, it can be evaluated that the recognition of work experience in the process of employment has an impact on the employment.

E. Sub-committee

The Plaintiffs’ private work experience constitutes “a similar work experience in the same field” prescribed in the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations (Attached Table 16) as the work experience subject to recognition prescribed in the instant guidelines. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiffs’ private work experience does not constitute that is illegal.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Lee Jae-he

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.