[1] Whether a public official has a right to demand the correction of a salary grade against the person holding the authority to define a salary grade and raise a salary (affirmative)

[2] Whether the attached Table 22 of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations [Attachment 22] paragraph (3) [Attachment 23] applies to the calculation of academic achievement reduction (negative)

[1] In light of the contents and purport of Articles 8(1), 9(1), 13, and 18 of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations, when the definition or elevation of the salary grade has been erroneous, an individual can apply for the correction thereof to the person holding the right to correct the salary grade and the person holding the right to correct the salary grade. Even if the right to apply for the correction of the salary grade is not acknowledged to an individual under the above provisions, a public official’s salary grade is the basis for calculating the public official’s salary grade and it has an important impact on the public official’s rights or legal interests, a public official’s right to apply for the correction of the erroneous salary grade is allowed under sound reasoning.

[2] In interpreting the text of Paragraph (5) of the attached Table 5 of the beginning salary grade table for public officials of high school or lower [Attachment Table 15], the phrase “if a school career overlaps with that of a public official, only one of them shall be included” shall be interpreted not to apply to the calculation of school age under [Attachment Table 22] paragraph (3) of the non-high school salary grade table. If it is interpreted that paragraph (3) of the non-high school salary grade applies not only to the conversion of career under [Attachment Table 22] paragraph (3) [Attachment Table 22] but also to the calculation of school age under [Attachment Table 23] subparagraph (Attachment Table 23], it would be inconsistent with Article 9 Paragraph (1) 1 of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations, which re-determines the salary grade if there is a change in the qualification or educational background of a public official.

[1] Articles 8(1), 9(1), 13, and 18 of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations / [2] Article 9(1)1, [Attachment Table 15], and [Attachment Table 22] Article 9(3) and [Attachment Table 23] of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu11278 delivered on June 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 2156)

Noh Jeong (Law Firm Han-hee, Attorneys Park Sung-min et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of the District Office of Education in North Deputy Office of Education in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Attorney Lee Hun-sik and one other)

1. The rejection disposition against the plaintiff on March 13, 1997 by the defendant against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the instant disposition

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 4-1, 2, 5 (the same as evidence No. 1), 6, and 7.

A. On February 2, 1978, the Plaintiff graduated from Seoul High School, and passed the Associate School Teachers' Qualification Examination on November 28, 1979, and on September 1, 1980, the Plaintiff was appointed as assistant teachers and worked at the Seoul Yangyang Elementary School and the Seoul High School by September 2, 1986.

B. From March 2, 1982 to February 15, 1986, the Plaintiff graduated from the Korean Language and Korean Language Department at the Gyeonggi University located in Seoul, the Plaintiff was qualified as a literature and the secondary grade teacher at the secondary and secondary schools. On September 3, 1986, the Plaintiff was appointed as a Grade II teacher at the secondary and secondary schools (Korean language) on October 9, 1989 and was dismissed on October 10, 1989. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was on leave of absence for about 10 months from May 2, 1988 to February 28, 1989 while working for New and Southern Middle Schools.

C. On March 1, 1994, the Plaintiff was specially appointed as a secondary school teacher and served in the Dobong Women's Middle School until now. On January 1, 1997, the Plaintiff obtained the qualification as a first-class regular teacher in the middle school on January 30, 1997 after completing the first-class regular teacher training.

D. On March 1, 1994, when the defendant specially appointed the plaintiff as a secondary school teacher, the plaintiff's salary grade was defined as 16 salary grade (3 months for the remaining month), and corrected the plaintiff's salary grade as 12 salary grade (3 months for the remaining month) on the same month.

E. On March 7, 1997, based on the first 16 salary grade defined for the defendant on March 7, 1997, the plaintiff demanded correction of the plaintiff's salary grade as it was the plaintiff's justifiable salary grade 17 salary grade in 1995, 196 salary grade 18 salary grade in 197, and 197 salary grade in 19. However, the defendant requested correction of the plaintiff's salary grade as above. However, the defendant applied the provisions of paragraph (3) of non-fixed salary grade [Attachment Table 22] to the calculation of school salary grade in the calculation of the beginning salary grade of public educational officials under the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "Remuneration Regulations"), if the plaintiff's beginning salary grade overlaps with the academic background, only one of them shall be included in the calculation of the beginning salary grade in [Attachment Table 23]. As such, the defendant's correction of the plaintiff's salary grade as 12 salary grade in 195, 196 salary grade in 14 and 197.3.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

(1) As a defense to safety, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the ground that, if the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Teachers Disciplinary Disciplinary Review Committee on March 29, 1994, the period for filing a request for reexamination was over, and accordingly, the instant lawsuit was unlawful. If the Plaintiff asserted the instant disposition without undergoing the previous trial procedure, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

(2) The purport of the claim is clear that the plaintiff, not the defendant's disposition of correction of salary grade as of March 29, 1994, but the defendant's disposition of rejection as of March 13, 1997 against the defendant's claim of correction of salary grade as of March 7, 1997.

On the other hand, in order to dispute unfavorable measures against teachers of national and public schools as an appeal litigation, the Ministry of Education shall undergo a review by the Teachers Disciplinary Review Committee (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu17874, Feb. 8, 1994; 93Du48, Jun. 29, 1994; 93Du48, Jun. 29, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status"), and according to the records, the plaintiff filed a petition for review with the above Review Committee on Apr. 2, 1997, within 30 days from the date when he becomes aware of the disposition in this case pursuant to Article 9 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status, but the said Review Committee rejected the plaintiff's petition for review on Jun. 9, 1997, and it is evident that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on Jul. 22, 1997.

Therefore, the plaintiff is deemed to have filed the lawsuit of this case through legitimate procedure of the previous trial. Therefore, the defendant's main defense of safety is without merit.

B. Determination on the requirements for recognizing the disposition of rejection

(1) If the Defendant’s refusal of the instant disposition against the Plaintiff’s request for correction of salary grade constitutes a rejection disposition that is subject to appeal litigation with respect to the nature of the instant disposition ex officio, the right to file an application under laws or sound reasoning, which requires the Plaintiff to file a request for correction of salary grade (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu6219, Sept. 12, 1997; 84Nu227, Oct. 23, 1984).

(2) Article 8(1) of the Remuneration Regulations provides that in a case where a public official is newly employed, the beginning salary grade shall be defined. Article 9(1) provides that in a case where a public official falls under any of the following subparagraphs while in office, the public official re-defineds the beginning salary grade, and Article 13 provides that in a case where the public official falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the period required for the promotion of a public official’s salary grade shall be one year, and in a case where Article 13(1) provides that in a case where the public official’s salary grade is made on January 1 and July 1 of each year, the public official’s salary grade shall be elevated as of January 1 and Article 18 provides that in a case where the determination of a salary grade or a elevation of a salary grade is erroneous under paragraph (1) of the same Article, the correction of the salary grade as referred to in paragraph (2) of this Article provides that the person holding the current salary grade and the person holding the authority to implement the elevation of a salary grade shall be confirmed as necessary matters for correction of the salary grade and salary grade.

(3) In full view of the contents and purport of the above provisions, when the definition of a salary grade or a elevation of a salary grade has been erroneous, an individual can apply for the correction thereof to the person holding the right to correct the salary grade and the person holding the right to apply for the correction of the salary grade. Even if the right to apply for the correction of the salary grade is not acknowledged to an individual under the above provisions of domestic affairs, a public official's salary grade is the basis for calculating the remuneration of a public official and has an important effect on the public official's rights or legal interests, a public official's right to apply for the correction of the erroneous salary grade is allowed under sound reasoning (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1278 delivered on June 9, 192).

(4) Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to demand correction of an erroneous salary grade against the defendant, who is the person holding the authority to define the salary grade and raise the salary grade of his competent public educational official. Thus, the disposition of this case is deemed to constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and related Acts and subordinate statutes. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the ground that the defendant's dissenting opinion is based on the remuneration provision [Attachment 22] that only one of them should be included in the calculation of the beginning salary class of a public educational official, because it is apparent that the provision of paragraph (3) of non-fixed-term is not applicable to the calculation of the school age reduction under [Attachment 23] of the

B. Relevant provisions

Article 8(2) of the Regulations on Remuneration provides that the beginning salary grade of public officials shall be defined by the table of the beginning salary grade of public officials [Attachment Table 15], and Article 8(5) of the Regulations on Remuneration of Public Officials [Attachment Table 15] provides that in the case of public officials subject to the salary table of public officials [Attachment Table 11] [Attachment Table 1] [Attachment Table 22] [Attachment Table 22], the number of years calculated under the career experience [Attachment Table 23] converted from [Attachment Table 22] shall be increased or decreased, and the beginning salary grade shall be defined by adding it to the salary table under [Attachment Table 25], [Attachment Table 22], [Attachment Table 23] and [Attachment Table 25] shall be as shown in the attached Table.

(c) Markets:

(1) In the interpretation of paragraph (5) of the beginning salary grade of a public official who provides for the method of defining the beginning salary grade of a high school or lower shall be interpreted as not applying to the calculation of the school salary grade under [Attachment Table 22] and paragraph (3) of the non- high school salary grade under [Attachment Table 22] and [Attachment Table 22] and paragraph (3) of the non- high school salary grade [Attachment Table 22] as argued by the Defendant, if it is interpreted as applicable not only to the career conversion under [Attachment Table 22] but also to the calculation of the school salary grade under [Attachment Table 23] and if it is interpreted as applicable to the calculation of the school salary grade under [Attachment Table 23], it shall be interpreted as not only to the school salary grade under [Attachment Table 23] but also to the effect that the graduation from a university at night is recognized as an academic background.

(2) On the premise of the above interpretation, when calculating the Plaintiff’s beginning salary class at the time of special employment on March 1, 1994, career experience under [Attachment Table 22] is 8 years and 3 months as a teacher of class 1, and the result of the school age calculation under [Attachment Table 23] is 16-16 =0, since the Plaintiff graduated from a night college at a distance within which the Plaintiff can attend an elementary school at the time of his/her employment, the starting salary class for class 2 teachers under [Attachment Table 25] is 8, and if all of them are added, it is 16th class (number 3 months, number 3 months, 8.3 +08).

(3) Therefore, even though the plaintiff's beginning salary grade was defined as 16 salary grade (3 months for the remaining month), and based on this, the plaintiff's beginning salary grade was determined as 12 salary grade (3 months for the remaining month) and based on this, the defendant's disposition rejecting the plaintiff's request for the correction of salary grade was unlawful, under the premise that the measure that the plaintiff's beginning salary grade was determined as 12 salary grade (3 months for the remaining month) was justifiable.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation on the ground that the disposition of this case is unlawful shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant who has lost as the defendant. [Attachment Omission]

Judges Lee Han-ju (Presiding Judge)