In a case where the principal of a high school: (a) announced the “school management organization proposal for the year 2012” after deliberation by the Committee on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff; (b) the head of a high school did not assign visiting teachers only curriculum for the year 2012 to visiting teachers; and (c) did not assign them as visiting teachers, the case holding that the failure to assign B as visiting teachers constitutes an administrative disposition; and (d) it can be deemed that public educational officials Eul had undergone the examination and decision by the Ombudsman Committee, but there is no legal interest to seek the revocation of the above disposition after the completion of the 20

In a case where the principal of a high school received “A’s letter of desire to fill, teach, and work division in 2012” from teachers, and then announced “A’s draft school management organization” after deliberation by the Committee on the Personnel Management of Teaching Staff, and then did not assign “A” to a visiting teacher who wishes to fill the class in 2012, the case holding that “A” does not have any legal interest in seeking revocation of the above disposition on the grounds that: (a) it constitutes an administrative disposition where Party A’s determination of assignment, such as whether to assign a teacher to the teaching staff under his/her control as a teacher; and (b) it is deemed that Party B did not assign a position as a teacher to which he/she belongs without undergoing an examination and decision by the Committee on Personnel Management of Public Educational Officials without undergoing an examination and decision by the Committee on Personnel Management of Teachers; (c) although the degree of 2012 was already completed; and (d) it cannot be deemed that the above disposition affects the rights or legal status of Party B.

Articles 2(1)1 and 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 49 and 53(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act, Article 16(1) of the State Public Officials Act, Article 9(1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status

Plaintiff

The Director of Civil High School

March 7, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On February 29, 2012, the defendant revoked the disposition of 2012 to exclude the plaintiff from entering the office.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 2007, a petition high school (hereinafter “instant school”) opened to an open autonomous school and was designated as an autonomous public high school around 2010. The Plaintiff was appointed as a visiting teacher of the instant school under the Chungcheongbuk-do Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education (from March 1, 2009 to February 28, 2013) and worked as visiting teacher in the instant school from March 1, 2009. The Plaintiff worked as visiting teacher in the instant school from March 1, 2009 while taking charge of social classes in the first year in the first year in the year of 209. However, the Plaintiff was in charge of social classes in the first year and the first year in the year of 2010 and year 2011 without taking charge of teaching teachers.

B. On February 16, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received from the existing teachers of the instant school, from each of the former teachers of the instant school on or before February 16, 2012, “to be in charge of filling, attending, taking charge of, and taking charge of, the task division”; and (b) drafted a draft on February 17, 2012 regarding the recruitment, taking charge of, and taking charge of, the task division; (c) passed the draft after deliberation by the Human Resources Management Advisory Committee for the instant school on February 20, 2012; and (d) announced the internal details to the teachers of the instant school on February 21, 2012; and (e) announced the “the 2012-year school management draft.”

C. However, at the time of December 201, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a written wishing to have a school teacher. However, according to the “School Management Draft” as seen above, the Defendant did not assign the Plaintiff as a school teacher with only allocated the social curriculum of the first and second years to the Plaintiff (from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013) and political curriculum of the second and second years.

라. 원고는 2012. 2. 21. 충청북도교육청 교육공무원 보통고충심사위원회에 피고가 2012학년도에 자신을 담임교사로 배정하지 않은 것은 위법·부당하다는 취지로 고충심사를 청구하였으나, 위 보통고충심사위원회에서는 2012. 3. 28. 위 청구를 불인용하는 결정을 하였다. 이에 원고는 2012. 4. 4. 교육공무원 중앙고충심사위원회( 교육공무원법 제49조 제3항 에 따라 교원소청심사위원회에서 그 기능을 관장한다)에 재심을 청구하였으나, 교원소청심사위원회에서는 2012. 6. 4. 위 청구를 불인용하는 결정을 하였다(원고는 2012. 6. 14.경 위 결정을 통지받았다).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 18 to Gap evidence 20, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The defendant's main defense

1) The Defendant’s act of not allocating the Plaintiff as a teacher does not constitute a disposition that is subject to appeal litigation as a mere internal act, etc. of an administrative agency, which does not directly affect the rights and obligations of citizens. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful

2) The instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was brought subsequent to the filing period.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether it constitutes an administrative disposition

According to the above facts, pursuant to Article 20 (1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act on February 29, 2012, Article 17 of the Public Educational Officials Act, whether the defendant allocates the teachers belonging to the school of this case including the plaintiff to the teachers of this case in the year of 2012, whether he allocates the teachers to the teachers in the year of 2012, whether he allocates the lessons, and the division of other duties, and assign their positions accordingly, which may directly affect the rights and duties in relation to the teachers in question.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s failure to assign the Plaintiff as a teacher even though the Plaintiff wishes to work as a teacher in the year 2012 constitutes an administrative disposition that directly affects the Plaintiff’s rights and duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Therefore, the Defendant’s prior defense on the merits of this part is without merit.

2) Whether the filing period has been observed

A) According to the above, the instant disposition is an unfavorable disposition against the Plaintiff’s will and thus, in order for the Plaintiff to object to the instant disposition, it may be deemed that the instant disposition should undergo an examination and decision by the Appeal Committee for Teachers as a procedure for the previous trial pursuant to Article 53(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act, Article 16(1) of the State Public Officials Act, and Article 9(1) of the Special Act on

나) 이 사건에서 살피건대, 원고는 이 사건 처분의 내용을 내부적으로 통보받자, 이 사건 처분이 공식적으로 이루어지기도 전인 2012. 2. 21.경 곧바로 이에 불복하여 교육공무원법 제49조 에 따라 충청북도교육청 교육공무원 보통고충심사위원회에 고충심사를 청구하였고, 위 보통고충심사위원회에서 2012. 3. 28. 위 청구를 불인용하는 결정을 하자, 다시 2012. 4. 4. 교육공무원 중앙고충심사위원회에 재심을 청구하였으며, 교원소청심사위원회에서 2012. 6. 4. 위 청구를 불인용하는 결정을 하자, 그로부터 90일 내인 2012. 7. 16. 이 사건 소를 제기하였고, 원고가 위와 같이 교원소청심사를 청구하지 아니한 채 고충심사를 청구한 것은 이 사건 처분이 교원소청심사청구 대상이 아니라는 교원소청심사위원회 소속 상담원 등의 안내에 따른 것으로 보인다.

다) 그런데 위 인정 사실에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 이 사건 처분과 같은 학교 내부의 보직과 관련된 인사처분 등의 경우에는 처분청이나 처분상대방 모두 사실상 그 처분성을 인식하지 못하는 경우가 많고 이에 따라 이와 같은 인사처분을 함에 있어서는 처분상대방인 교원 등에 대한 불복절차 안내 등도 사실상 거의 이루어지지 않고 있는 점, ② 특히 이와 같은 인사처분의 경우에는 그 유·불리에 대한 판단이 상대적인 것이어서 교원소청심사청구 대상인지 여부가 명백하지 않을 수 있는 점, ③ 이 사건에서도 피고는 이 사건 처분을 함에 있어서 원고에 대하여 불복절차를 안내한 바 없고, 원고도 교원소청심사청구 대상이 아니라는 교원소청심사위원회 소속 상담원 등의 안내에 따라 교원소청심사 대신 고충심사를 청구하게 된 것인 점, ④ 교육공무원법 제49조 에 따른 고충심사 제도는 비록 법적인 쟁송절차로 예정된 것은 아니지만 교원 등의 권익을 보장하고 인사를 비롯한 제반 직무조건 등에 대하여 자율적으로 시정이나 개선책을 도모하기 하기 위한 제도이고, 교육공무원 중앙고충심사위원회의 기능은 교원소청심사위원회에서 관장하도록 되어 있는 등 교원소청심사 제도와 고충심사 제도는 그 본질이 거의 동일하다고 볼 수 있는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 원고가 위와 같이 고충심사 청구를 하여 충청북도교육청 교육공무원 보통고충심사위원회와 교육공무원 중앙고충심사위원회의 결정을 거친 것은 이 사건 소송의 전심절차를 거친 것으로 볼 수 있고, 원고가 2012. 6. 14.경 교육공무원 중앙고충심사위원회(교원소청심사위원회)의 위 재심 청구 불인용 결정을 통지받은 후 그로부터 90일 내에 이 사건 소를 제기한 이상, 이 사건 소는 제소기간을 준수하였다고 봄이 타당하므로, 피고의 이 부분 본안 전 항변도 이유 없다.

3) Whether there is a benefit in a lawsuit

However, as to the existence of the interest in the lawsuit of this case ex officio, the disposition of this case is about the assignment of teachers in the 2012 year of the school of this case. The current 2012 year, which has the effect of the disposition of this case, has already been terminated, and it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case has any influence on the plaintiff's present rights or legal status (the plaintiff's additional points are given when it is assessed as a teacher, and 110,000 won are paid when it is assessed as a teacher. However, even if the disposition of this case is cancelled, it cannot be deemed that there is a interest in the lawsuit of this case merely because the additional points related to the assessment of 2012 year are not given or the allowances are not paid retroactively to the plaintiff. Considering the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's right to request the revocation of the disposition of this case has no legal interest in the plaintiff's assignment of the office of this case to the school of this case, and that the defendant has no interest in the school of this case's principal, etc.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judge Choi Byung-hee (Presiding Judge)