1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. The Defendant asserts that the lawsuit against the Defendant is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment in this case does not seek the return of benefits, but seeks the return of the agreed amount paid by the Plaintiff pursuant to the agreement with the superintendent of education of Gyeonggi-do, which is the party to the agreement, becomes the Defendant of the lawsuit in this case.

However, in a performance suit, the standing to be the defendant in itself is the plaintiff's claim and the judgment is absorptioned into the judgment as to the propriety of the claim, and thus the person alleged as the performance obligor is the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451, Nov. 28, 1995). Thus, the defendant's prior defense on the merits is without merit.

3. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education should return the corresponding amount of the salary of this case paid pursuant to the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations during the study leave by coercioning the plaintiff who desires to be dismissed from office is against the prohibition of default on the labor contract prohibited under Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act, and is null and void against the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations, and there is no legitimate ground as follows. As such, the defendant gains profit equivalent to the salary of this case returned by the plaintiff without any legal ground, and the plaintiff suffered loss equivalent to the same amount, thus the defendant must return it to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

(1) The provision that a public educational official working manual of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education serves for a period of 1.5 times the period of his/her leave of absence after studying in the personnel affairs manual of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education is clearly against the provisions of Article 7 of the Labor Standards Act