beta
Text
1. On May 1, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of re-Definition of the salary grade against the Plaintiff is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff acquired a secondary school regular teacher qualification from June 1, 2001 to July 31, 2001 (2 months), from September 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001 (4 months), from February 1, 2002 to February 28, 2003 (13 months), from March 1, 2005 to February 23, 206 (11 month) from each special school as a fixed-term teacher (hereinafter “this case’s work experience”), and served as a teacher from the special school to October 31, 201 to the date of appointment as a public educational official from February 31, 201.
B. At the time of new appointment of the Plaintiff on March 1, 2012, the superintendent of education of Gwangju Metropolitan City included 100% of the career experience in the instant case when defining the Plaintiff’s salary grade.
C. On May 1, 2014, the Superintendent of the Gwangju Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Metropolitan City Superintendent”) issued an official document to the Defendant on May 1, 2014, stating that “The Plaintiff had a second-class teacher’s license for secondary school teachers and worked in a school that does not coincide with the type of teacher’s license. Accordingly, Articles 9, 8(1) [Attachment Table 15] and 8(1) of the former Public Officials Remuneration Regulations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26041, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall include only 50% of the career of the instant case by correcting the Plaintiff’s salary class, and submit the result to the Defendant by May 15, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant sent an official document to the effect that the Plaintiff’s re-disposition of the administrative authority by December 1, 2015, Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, Article 6 subparag. 1(c)(3) of the Plaintiff’s salary No. 23(hereinafter “Y”).
AB made it.
E. On July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal review with the Teachers’ Appeal Committee seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but on October 30, 2014.