[Judgment of the court below]

Public Official Pension Corporation

April 29, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant revoked on November 7, 2007 the disposition of non-approval for aggregate of the tenure of office against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff graduated from the applied art department and graduate school of the ○ University, and around May 191, the Plaintiff was appointed as an assistant professor of the ○ University for a period of four years from September 1, 1994 after obtaining a doctorate from the graduate school of the ○ University, and was on duty for four years from September 1, 1994, and lost teaching staff due to the disposition rejecting the reappointment of the president of the ○ University on August 31, 1998.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disposition rejecting the appointment of professors, and the result (Seoul High Court No. 99Gu683, Seoul High Court No. 2000Nu1708, Supreme Court No. 2000Du7735, Seoul High Court No. 2004Nu11086) won, which was reappointed on March 3, 2005.

B. On October 10, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the Republic of Korea (Seoul Central District Court 2005Gahap90792), and was sentenced on July 28, 2006 to “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 1) 371,274,910, and its delay damages,” and the judgment became final and conclusive.

On the other hand, on March 15, 2007, the president of ○○ University re-determines the Plaintiff’s salary class from salary grade 20 to salary grade 28 by recognizing the period of revocation of reappointment to the Plaintiff as the period of service.

C. On November 5, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for aggregation of the tenure of office for the exclusion period to the Defendant by adding the period of his reappointment to the tenure of office (hereinafter “instant application”).

D. On November 7, 2007, the defendant notified the plaintiff on November 7, 2007 that "the period of renunciation of appointment is different from the period of service stipulated in the Public Officials Pension Act, for which there is no appointment as a public official under the State Public Officials Pension Act, and the plaintiff paid damages equivalent to the benefits not paid under the Public Officials Pension Regulations, so it cannot be recognized as the period of service of a public official under the Public Officials Pension Act, and since the application in this case was filed only after November 5, 2007, two years after the date of appointment stipulated in Article 24 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, it is impossible to approve an application for aggregation of the period of service due to the lapse of the period of application for aggregation of the period of service (hereinafter

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 9, Gap evidence 3-9, Eul evidence 1-3-3, and video, the fact inquiry results about ○ University President of this Court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) During the period of re-employment, the Plaintiff written a single author on the 2nd international academic paper and the 2nd international academic paper in laboratories, etc., published the thesis and the 19th academic paper, and continued to work for students during the said 13-year period as public educational officials, including continuing lectures. The Defendant’s disposition of this case, which was otherwise reported, is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion, even though ○ University’s president recognizes it as working period and re-defineds his salary class.

The Plaintiff demanded the president of ○○ University to recognize the period of his reappointment as the tenure of office since his reappointment on March 3, 2005. However, the president of ○ University recognized the period of his reappointment as the tenure of office only when he reached March 15, 2007. As such, the period of his total tenure of office shall be calculated from March 15, 2007. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case otherwise reported is unlawful, notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant application within the total period of application.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to the Public Officials Pension Act, the period of service under the Public Officials Pension Act, when a retired public official is reappointed as a public official after acquiring his status as a legitimate public official, is included in the former period of service (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du205, Jul. 26, 2002, etc.). Although the Plaintiff continued to serve as a public official even after his status as a public official was lost due to the expiration of his term of service, the period during which he lost his status as a public official due to the expiration of his term of service (the period of de-election) does not constitute the period of service of a public official under the State Public Officials Pension Act, and thus, it cannot be included in the period of service under the Public Officials Pension Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du205, Jul

D. In addition, Article 24(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act provides, “Any person who intends to add up the tenure of office shall submit an application for adding up the tenure of office to the Corporation through the head of the agency to which he belongs, within two years from the date he is appointed as a public official,” and Article 17(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act provides, “Any person who intends to be subject to adding up the tenure of office under Article 24(1) of the Act shall submit an application for adding up the tenure of office to the

However, in the instant case, the Plaintiff filed the instant application with the Defendant via the president of ○ University on November 5, 2007, when two years have elapsed since March 3, 2005, the date of re-appointed, and the date of filing an application for aggregation of the period of service cannot be deemed a lawful application for aggregation of the period of service, and there is no ground to recognize the date of filing an application for aggregation of the period of service as March 15, 2007, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Even if the Plaintiff demanded the president of ○○ University to recognize the period of exclusion from reappointment as the tenure of office since his/her reappointment, it cannot be viewed differently as long as the Plaintiff did not submit an application for exclusion from reappointment according to the procedures prescribed by law.

The defendant's disposition of this case in the same purport is legitimate, and the defendant's assertion on the other premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be rejected as it is without merit, and it shall be decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)

1) The amount of wages and consolation money that could have been received if the person worked normally during the period of re-appointing (as of September 1, 1998 - March 2, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the "period of re-election") and the amount of damages equivalent to the amount of benefits and consolation money that could have