The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Chairperson of the Si Personnel Committee shall be revoked.

Defendant.

1. The circumstances leading up to the disposition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff has a disability of grade 2 with hearing impairment.

On February 9, 2018, the Chairperson of the Gyeonggi-do Personnel Committee published the "Implementation Plan for the Open Competitive Examinations for Local Public Officials of Gyeonggi-do" in the first (Grade 89) and second (Grade 7) year 2018, which includes the selection of two persons in class 9 general administrative service categories as a screening for the classification of persons with disabilities by Defendant B.

On May 19, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for the selection screening of persons with general disability at Grade B, and entered the written examination. On June 25, 2018, the Chairperson of the Gyeonggi-do Personnel Committee publicly announced the Plaintiff as the only successful applicant for the said screening.

On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for the interview, and was classified as the subject of the additional interview, and completed the interview again on July 18, 2018 (hereinafter “instant interview”). Defendant B’s personnel committee chairperson (hereinafter “Defendant Chairperson”), on July 24, 2018, announced the final successful applicants for the open competitive examination for local public officials of Grade 89 in 2018, excluding the Plaintiff, on July 24, 2018.

The final failure disposition against the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "final failure disposition") is called the "disposition in this case".

(ii) [In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the following grounds.

The defendant chairperson who violated the duty to provide convenience did not give prior public notice of the content, method, etc. of supporting convenience provided to applicants with disabilities in the interview of this case.

In addition, the defendant chairperson explained the characteristics of the plaintiff's disability to the interview committee members as negative, did not extend the time of the examination, and had non-professionals interpret letters, and placed the plaintiff's seat on the right side, not on the face of the interview committee members, so that the plaintiff can take an interview in the same conditions as the non-disabled applicant.