Plaintiff (Attorney Kim-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Education (Attorney Nam-soo, Counsel for defendant)

November 27, 2014

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

The primary purport of the claim is to confirm that the President's refusal to appoint a principal against the plaintiff on March 1, 2014 is invalid.

Preliminary claim: The President's refusal to appoint a principal against the plaintiff on March 1, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a teacher who was promoted as an assistant principal on September 1, 201 after being appointed as an elementary school teacher on March 1, 1979 and served as an assistant principal of ○○ △△△△△△, an assistant principal of the elementary school.

B. From October 21, 2013 to November 15, 2013, the Plaintiff received “the sixth elementary school principal qualification training” from October 21, 2013.

C. As of January 31, 201 each year, the superintendent of the ○○ Metropolitan City Office of Education shall make a list of candidates for promotion in the order of candidates for promotion who evaluate their career, work performance, and training performance and add up their rating points. The list of candidates for promotion on January 31, 2014 is registered as the list of candidates for promotion in the order of priority 10.

D. On March 1, 2014, the President newly promoted 18 elementary school principals within the jurisdiction of the ○○ Metropolitan Office of Education, and the Plaintiff was not included in the promotion of the above elementary school principal.

E. On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Board of Education for review of a teacher’s petition seeking the revocation of “the rejection of appointment of a principal to the Plaintiff on March 1, 2014,” but the Appeal Commission for Teachers rejected the Plaintiff’s petition petition on May 14, 2014 on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not have the right to apply for appointment of a principal.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 6, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Summary of the Defendant’s defense before the merits

The lawsuit of this case, which is based on the above right to apply, is unlawful, since there is no statutory or logical right to apply to the Plaintiff for the appointment or proposal of the principal to the principal.

【Summary of the Plaintiff’s argument

According to the Act and subordinate statutes of public educational officials, when promoting a public educational official, the appointment authority or appointment-recommendation authority shall appoint or recommend the public educational official in the order of high-ranking persons on the list of candidates for promotion. In other words, the appointment authority or appointment-recommendation authority has a duty to recommend the appointment or appointment in accordance with the order entered in the list of candidates for promotion prepared in advance. Accordingly, the candidate for promotion listed in the list of candidates for promotion has a right to request the

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be as stated.

C. Determination

(1) In this case, it is examined whether the act of the President not appointing the plaintiff as the principal constitutes an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, that is, whether the Plaintiff has the right to request the President to appoint the principal in accordance with the law or sound reasoning.

The main text of Article 14(2) of the Luxembourg of the Educational Officials Act provides that “where a candidate intends to promote a public educational official under his/her jurisdiction, he/she shall be appointed or recommended to recommend a candidate within three times the number of vacant positions in the order of precedence in the list of candidates for promotion.” Article 14(1) of the Decree on the Appointment of Education Officials provides that “When the appointment authority or appointment-recommendation authority intends to recommend a public educational official under his/her jurisdiction, he/she shall appoint or recommend a candidate within three times the number of persons scheduled to be promoted in the order of precedence in the list of candidates for promotion.” In full view of the purport of the above provision, the appointment authority or appointment-recommendation authority may appoint or recommend a candidate with high discretion within the scope of “three times the number of persons scheduled to be promoted” in the order of the list of candidates for promotion, and it cannot be said that there is a duty to recommend a candidate for promotion or appointment in the order of priority in the list of candidates for promotion. Therefore, if a candidate is within the “number of candidates scheduled to be promoted” or within three times the entire number of candidates for promotion.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking nullification or revocation of the refusal to appoint a principal of a elementary school against the plaintiff is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, since there is no legal or logical application that can demand the plaintiff to promote him as a principal of a elementary school.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)