경력합산 불인정통보 취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
The court's explanation on this part is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Plaintiff’s assertion
The main point of the guidelines for the handling of remuneration for local public officials [Attachment I]’s career conversion rate table by occupation (hereinafter “instant processing guidelines”) provides that the work experience in private sector specialized field is subject to recognition of “the work experience directly engaged in the same field as that of the expected class and class of position to be appointed and full-time work experience receiving regular remuneration.” In this case, the same field “the same area” refers to “the work experience in the same specialized field after obtaining the doctor’s degree after obtaining the certificate of qualification,” or “the work experience without the certificate of qualification, which is recognized as the relevant field of work” or “the work experience recognized as the relevant field of work in the career competitive examination, etc. that requires the career experience for each occupation, such as Article 27(2)3 of the Local Public Officials Act or “the equivalent work experience” shall be recognized as the same field, but
Here, “a career corresponding thereto” shall be deemed to mean “a career corresponding to the career recognized in the relevant field of duty in the career-competitive examination, etc., even if appointed by the open competitive examination.”
Nevertheless, the Defendant’s interpretation of the instant processing guidelines to include only the public officials appointed through the career competitive examination for appointment without a qualification certificate, etc., and the Plaintiff’s private service experience employed through an open competitive examination for appointment on such premise is unlawful.
In light of the purport of the language and text of the relevant statutes, the determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition is examined.