2016Guhap78097 Requests for remuneration of public officials

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

10. J

11, K

12. L.

13. M;

14.N

15,00

16. P;

17. Qua

18. R

19. S;

20. Telecommunication

21. U;

22. V

23.W;

24. X

25. Y

26. Z;

27. AA

28. AB

29. AC

30. AD;

31. AE;

32. AF;

33. AG;

34. AH;

35. AI;

36. AJ

37. AK;

38. AL;

39. AM;

40,N

41. AO

42. AP;

43. A Q.

Korea

July 14, 2017

September 8, 2017

1. The defendant shall pay each of the above amounts to the plaintiffs (attached Form 1)' total amount of public official's remuneration table and each of the above amounts (attached Form 1), from July 26, 2016 to public official's remuneration table, with respect to each amount stated in the "monthly remuneration" column, from August 26, 2016 to November 3, 2016; from September 24, 2016 to November 3, 2016 to 15% per annum from September 24, 2016 to the day of full payment; and from the next day to November 3, 2016 to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 16, 2014, after the accident of the Sewol ferry sinking on the sea near the Chonam-gun's tidal Map, the Special Investigation Committee on the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") was enacted on November 19, 2014 and implemented on January 1, 2015. Article 3 of the Special Act stipulates that the Special Investigation Committee on the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") shall be established to ascertain the truth of the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster, improve the system related to the construction of a safe society, and inspect the support measures for victims.

B. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Special Act for the formation of the Committee, the Family Representative Meeting of Victims shall be elected on November 27, 2014, the Korean Bar Association shall appoint two members on November 28, 2014, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall appoint two members on December 9, 2014, and the National Assembly shall elect 10 members on December 29, 2014 and notify the President thereof. On February 17, 2015, the President: (a) the term of office of the said 17 members on January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015; (b) the term of office of the Committee’s standing members or government personnel appointment as members on March 5, 2015 to non-standing members on March 9, 2015; and (c) the Committee granted the appointment of each member on March 15, 2015 to the Committee’s appointment.

On May 11, 2015, the Committee announced the employment of employees on May 5, 2015 and granted a letter of appointment to the employees selected on July 27, 2015. The Committee’s budget was decided by the State Council on August 4, 2015, and was allocated to the Committee.

C. Around July 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs were public officials in extraordinary civil service who were appointed to and were employed as each class listed in the public official’s remuneration table (see Article 19(2) of the Special Act) and have been affiliated with the administrative support office under the commission, fact-finding bureau, safety bureau, society, victim support inspection department, etc., and have been performing the duties of the commission prescribed in Article 5 of the Special Act. Meanwhile, the commission held the seventh session on June 4, 2015 and extended the commission’s activity period for six months pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Special Act.

D. The Defendant asserted that the commission’s activity period from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016, which was one year and six months after January 1, 2015, did not compile a budget for the commission from July 1, 2016, and did not pay remuneration to the Plaintiffs from July 1, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in case of a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

[Attachment 2] The entry is as specified in the relevant statutes.

3. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

According to Article 7 (1) of the Special Act, the period of operation of the Committee shall be calculated from "the date the Committee completes the formation of the Committee," and since the date when the Committee has completed its organization is equipped with human and physical foundations that can actually perform its duties on August 4, 2015, the period of operation of the Committee shall be calculated from August 4, 2015. The Plaintiffs have the status of public officials in extraordinary civil service during the duration of the Committee (Article 19 (2) of the Special Act) and actually worked until September 30, 2016 (before that time, the Plaintiffs retired from office were retired until the date of their retirement). Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs each amount written in the “total sum of the public official remuneration table” (attached Form 1) from July 2016 to September 30, 2016, as requested by the Plaintiffs.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Article 3 of the Addenda of the Special Act provides that the term of office of a member of the Committee shall begin on the date this Act enters into force ( January 1, 2015). Therefore, even if a member was appointed after the enforcement of the Special Act, the term of office of the member shall begin from January 1, 2015. Therefore, “the date when the composition of the Committee is completed” under Article 7(1) of the Special Act shall be deemed January 1, 2015, and the term of office of the Committee shall be until June 30, 2016, which is one year and six months after the date when the Committee’s activities continue to exist. Since the Plaintiffs have the status of a public official in extraordinary civil service during the period in which the Committee continues to exist, it shall not be deemed that the Defendant was in a position of a public official in extraordinary civil service after June 30, 2016. Accordingly, the Defendant is not obligated to pay each remuneration

4. Determination

Article 19(2) of the Special Act provides that employees of the Committee, such as the Plaintiffs, shall be regarded as public officials in extraordinary civil service for the duration of their activities. Article 7(1) of the Special Act provides that “The Committee shall complete its activities within one year (within six months) from the date on which the composition thereof is completed.” The Special Act provides that “The Committee shall establish subcommittees (Article 16 of the Special Act) and the Secretariat (Article 18 of the Special Act) as essential agencies of the Committee, shall elect the Chairperson, etc. (Article 6(3) of the Special Act, and shall have not more than 120 employees (Article 15(1) of the Special Act, Articles 2 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act).” Article 7(1) of the Special Act provides that “The Committee shall complete its activities within 1 year from the date on which the Committee’s composition is completed, and that the term of office of the Committee shall be 15 years retroactively from the date on which its composition is completed.” Article 15 of the Special Act provides that “The Committee’s appointment of the Committee may be made within 16 months after its composition.

It is reasonable to regard it as August 4, 2015.

Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7 (including each number), the plaintiffs are deemed to have worked until September 30, 2016 in the course of performing their duties as an employee of the Commission, including investigation duties, preparation for the third hearing (from September 1, 2016 to 2), business trips, etc., which the defendant claims as at the time of the end of the commission’s activity period, and until September 30, 2016. Since the period from August 4, 2015, when the commission was organized, one year and six months have not elapsed since August 4, 2015, when the commission was organized, the plaintiffs should be deemed to have filed a claim for remuneration with a public official who has worked as an employee of the Commission from July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016 (formerly, the plaintiffs shall be deemed to have worked as the employee of the commission.

Therefore, as the plaintiffs seek, the defendant has the duty to pay each of the following amounts from July 2016, to July 2016, and from August 26, 2016, to August 26, 2016, to August 26, 2016, with respect to each of the above amounts stated in the "total Public Officials' Remuneration Schedule" (attached Form 1) and the "Monthly Remuneration Schedule" as stated in Article 20 (1) [Attachment 30] of the Public Officials Remuneration Rules, and from August 25, 2016, to August 26, 2016, and from August 25, 2016 (25 days), with respect to each amount described in the "Monthly Remuneration" as remuneration payment date (attached Form 1) and each of the above amounts, to pay a copy of the complaint from September 24, 2016 to May 15, 2016, respectively, under Article 20 (2) of the Public Officials Remuneration Rules.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting them.

The presiding judge, the Korean Judge;

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Lee Jae-he

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.