1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Case history
A. On May 21, 2015, the Defendant: (a) revised and published the Public Educational Officials’ Benefit Points Evaluation Regulations (Public Notice No. 2015-133 of the Office of Education of Gyeongnam-do); and (b) [Attachment 1] of the amended [Attachment 1] of the amended Regulations, “4.2 dispatch (common)”;
6.2. Dispatched services in Korea;
(3) Islands and remote areas, and
6. (4) Quasi-a remote area;
6.5 Agricultural and Fishing Schools, etc.
6. (6) Each additional point of “Good Teachers in Educational Activities” is defined as “1.80” (hereinafter “the instant notice”), and Article 2 [Attachment Table 1] of the Addenda, set forth a transitional provision that annual application is to be made on December 31, 2016, when evaluating on December 31, 2016; 2.0 points when evaluating on December 31, 2017; 1.9 points when evaluating on December 31, 2017; and 1.8 points when evaluating on December 31, 2018.
B. On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a petition review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers seeking the revocation of the instant notice, but the said claim was dismissed on February 24, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 2 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiffs asserted that they were or were in office in island and remote areas. According to the former provisions before the revision, they were registered in the list of candidates or may be designated in priority within the list after receiving additional points of work in island and remote areas. However, they violated the above opportunity due to the revision of the public notice of this case.
Since the notice of this case violates the right of equality and the principle of protection of trust as stipulated in the Constitution, it is unlawful for the Defendant to revise the notice of this case by abusing its discretion.
3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety
A. The Defendant’s main notice of this case’s main defense does not directly affect the Plaintiffs’ rights or legal interests, and thus does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.
(b)be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.