The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, even though the status of the public official cannot be recovered due to nullification or revocation of the removal from the position exceeding the retirement age while the lawsuit seeking nullification or revocation of the removal from the position is pending under the State Public Officials Act, there is a legal interest to seek nullification or revocation of the removal from the position where the payment of reduced salary, etc. for the period from the date of such nullification or revocation

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du18406 Decided July 29, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 201Du5001 Decided February 23, 2012, etc.). In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined on the merits of the instant case on the premise that the Plaintiff, the retirement age of which was in the course of the fact-finding trial, has a legal interest in seeking cancellation of the removal from position. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on legal interest

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 4

A. Based on the evidence adopted, the lower court: (a) based on the fact that the Plaintiff was a public official of Grade V promoted from the Ministry of Employment and Labor on March 9, 2006 to the Grade V official; (b) if the evaluation group consisting of 37 public officials of Grade VI or lower who were promoted to Grade V on June 2010 by the Ministry of Employment and Labor after formulating a plan to strengthen the capacity of an interim manager on or around June 2010; (c) held the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office and the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s selection of 20 persons including the Plaintiff, etc. in turn; (d) held the selection committee for those subject to the capacity strengthening; and (e) held the capacity strengthening program from July 2010 to around three months; and (e) held the evaluation committee to grant the Plaintiff an evaluation grade “insufficient” to the Plaintiff on January 6, 2011.