1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was assigned to supplemental service as a performance of military service pursuant to Articles 3(1), 5(1)3, 36, 38, and 39 of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 4840, Dec. 31, 1994); and was assigned to supplemental service as a defense contractor B from March 30, 1994 to March 29, 197.

B. On July 1, 2004, the Plaintiff was appointed as a local public official (class 9 local assistant) belonging to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City superintendent’s office of education. At the time, the Defendant (designated by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City superintendent’s office of education pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Local Public Officials Act, Article 26(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act, and Article 5(1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority, the former Local Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 9301, Dec. 31, 2008), Article 45(1)1 of the former Local Public Officials Act, Article 8(2) [Attachment 1] of the former Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22619, Jan. 10, 201) defines the Plaintiff’s beginning salary grade as class 9 of class 1 of class 9 pursuant to subparagraph 1(a) of the attached Table 1.

C. On September 21, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the starting salary should be defined pursuant to Article 8(2) [Attachment Table 1] [Attachment Table 1] 1(b) of the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations, and filed an application with the Defendant for re-Definition of the Plaintiff’s beginning salary grade pursuant to Article 9 of the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations, because three years of compulsory service as industrial technical personnel are included in “military service experience” under subparagraph 1(a) of [Attachment 2] of the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations.

On December 12, 2012, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the period of compulsory service as industrial technical personnel is not included in the “military service experience” under subparagraph 1 (a) of attached Table 2 of the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On January 11, 2013, the Plaintiff goes through the review and decision of the appeals review committee.