The case holding that a public official has no interest in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the revocation of the disposition of promotion of a public official belonging to an autonomous Gu of the head of the autonomous Gu, where the Metropolitan City Mayor ex officio cancels the disposition of promotion and the agency litigation is pending;

The case holding that public officials have no interest in filing a lawsuit against the Metropolitan City Mayor seeking the revocation of the revocation of the promotional disposition against the Metropolitan City Mayor when the Metropolitan City Mayor ex officio revokes the promotional disposition for the public officials belonging to the autonomous Gu head of the autonomous Gu and the agency litigation is pending, on the grounds that the basic facts and legal issues of the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the promotional disposition against the Metropolitan City Mayor and the above agency litigation are identical, and that the previous promotional disposition against the public officials should immediately be taken effect in the case where the revocation of the above promotional disposition is accepted by the head of the autonomous Gu in the above agency litigation and the above agency litigation is revoked, and therefore, the above agency litigation has no interest in filing a lawsuit against the

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 157 of the Local Autonomy Act

Plaintiff 1 and 8 others (Attorney Choi Yong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor

April 26, 2006

1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

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

The revocation disposition of promotion made by the defendant against the plaintiffs on June 7, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the purport of the whole pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 18, Eul evidence 19, Eul evidence 21 through 23:

A. On November 15, 2004, the plaintiffs participated in the general strike of the National Public Officials' Union (hereinafter referred to as "major labor union") as public officials belonging to the Dong-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City and the Northbuk-gu Office. After that, they received each promotion from the head of Dong-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City and the North Korean head (hereinafter referred to as "Dong-gu and the North Korean head"). The plaintiffs' affiliation, workplace, date of promotion, former rank, and post-promotion are as follows.

On January 31, 2005, 1. Grade 1 of the former grade after promotion of the former grade to which the Plaintiff belongs; on January 31, 2005, the Dong Office No. 1 Dong Office No. 1, 2005; on February 21, 2005, the Seodong Office No. 21, 2005; on January 31, 2005, the Environmental Sanitation of the Local Government No. 3. Local Government No. 5; on January 31, 2005; on February 3, 2005, the Dong Office No. 4; on February 5, 2005, the Dong Office No. 6; on June 7, the Dong Office No. 20065; on July 2, 2005, the Dong Office No. 1 Local Government No. 8. Agriculture, Forestry, and Local Government No. 977, the local Telecommunications No. 1, 2005.

B. The Defendant urged several times to request the head of Dong/Dong and the North Korean head of the North Korean government to make a resolution on the disciplinary action against the participants in the strike, including the Plaintiffs, on the ground that public officials participating in the general strike of major labor union violated the duty to obey and prohibit collective action as prescribed by the Local Public Officials Act. However, the head of Dong/Dong and the North Korean head of North Korean government did not comply with this,

C. Accordingly, according to Article 2(1) of the Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Regulations, the Defendant is obligated to request the Committee having jurisdiction over the relevant disciplinary case without delay when a public official under his/her jurisdiction is deemed to have grounds for disciplinary action, and according to Article 34(1)1 of the Decree on the Appointment of Local Public Officials, a public official cannot be promoted when he/she is "in the event of a request for disciplinary action". However, the head of the Gu and the North Korean head of the Dong government decided that the promotion of a public official without the request for disciplinary action against the plaintiffs who participated in illegal strike is an illegal or unfair disposition that deviates from the appointing authority's discretion. Thus, the Defendant ordered the head of the Dong-gu and the North North Korean head of the North Korean government to take corrective measures on March 2, 2005 and April 6, 2005 pursuant to Article 157(1) of the

D. On May 6, 2005, the defendant again ordered the head of Dong/Dong and the head of Northbuk-gu to revoke the promotional disposition against the plaintiffs by May 31, 2005. However, the head of Dong/Dong and North-gu head failed to comply with the order within the period. Accordingly, on June 7, 2005, the defendant revoked the promotional disposition against the plaintiffs ex officio based on Article 157(1) of the Local Autonomy Act (hereinafter "the disposition in this case").

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Main Safety Defenses

(1) The instant disposition was made by the Defendant against the head of Dong/Dong and the North Korean head pursuant to Article 157 of the Local Autonomy Act, and the Plaintiffs were third parties unrelated to the instant disposition, and even if the promotion of the Plaintiffs was revoked due to the instant disposition, it was merely an anti-private disadvantage due to the instant disposition, and thus, there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant disposition.

(2) The instant disposition takes effect only within an administrative agency, and this does not directly affect the rights and obligations of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is the object of an appeal litigation.

(3) Since the head of the Dong and the North Korean head of the Gu have already filed an agency suit against the defendant under Article 157(2) of the Local Autonomy Act and the case is being tried by the Supreme Court, there is no interest in the lawsuit of this case brought by the plaintiffs separately.

(b) Markets:

The fact that the head of the North Korean government and the head of the Dong/Dong are dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and the defendant filed an agency suit under the Local Autonomy Act Article 157 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act against the defendant as the Supreme Court No. 2005No. 62 and 2005 No. 79, and the above case is pending in the

However, the above agency litigation differs in the purport, character, and procedure of the system from the appeal litigation, such as the lawsuit of this case. However, the above agency litigation of this case and the lawsuit of this case of this case are identical with the basic facts and legal issues. The previous agency litigation of this case is accepted by the head of Dong/Gu or the North Korean head, and if the disposition of this case is revoked in the above agency litigation, the validity of the previous promotional disposition against the plaintiffs should immediately be considered. As a result, the agency litigation of this case is in charge of the function of the procedure for relief directly and finally against the plaintiffs. Thus, the head of Dong-gu or North Korea head of Dong-gu did not institute the agency litigation of this case within the period for filing the lawsuit of this case and there is no other relief procedure except in the case where the plaintiffs directly seek the cancellation of the disposition of this case and it is proceeding as of the date of closing of argument of this case.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful without further review as to the remainder.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is all unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Go Jong-ju (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sung's teaching resources