(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.9.1. 선고 2016구합100231 판결

"If a person who has been hired from a person who has specialized in the construction department of the plaintiff has worked as an industrial enterprise for a certain period of time, he/she is found to have completed the course of study through a training institution for teachers' colleges, teachers' colleges, and teachers' colleges, and the defendant's omission in the application for training as a nationalless personnel (NCS)-based teacher is found to have been illegal."

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s failure to implement the system of fostering (National Skill Standards) teachers through the institutions such as colleges of education, educational graduate schools, etc. (National Skill Standards) is illegal if the pre-employed workers from specialized high-ranking/mast masters have industrial experience for a certain period of more than 3 years (3 to 5 years).

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff has no standing to sue or there is no illegal omission that is the object of an appeal litigation.

B. Determination

1) Relevant precedents

A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission is instituted only by a person who has filed a petition for a disposition and has legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission (Article 36 of the Administrative Litigation Act). In cases where a party fails to file a petition to an administrative agency for an administrative act, or a party does not have any legal or logical right to demand the relevant administrative act to do so, there is no standing to sue, or where an illegal omission is subject to an appeal litigation. The lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission is unlawful on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du7853, Oct. 26, 2007; 96Nu1634, May 14, 1996).

On the other hand, the right to petition under Article 26 (1) of the Constitution is merely a right that citizens have the right to state their opinions or desire to state a certain matter to the State agency, and thus, the State is obligated to examine the petition under Article 26 (2) of the Constitution, and even if the competent government agency is obligated to notify the petitioner of the result of the review under the Civil Procedure Act, the receiving government agency is not obliged to faithfully, fairly, and promptly review the petition and notify the petitioner of the result. Therefore, the issue of whether the receiving government agency accepts the petition and takes specific measures is subject to the discretion of the State agency, and thereby does not affect the rights, obligations, and other legal relations of the petitioner (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1458 delivered on May 25, 190).

2) Determination

On the other hand, if the Plaintiff had been employed by the pre-employed who was from the specialized height/mast master in the Defendant for a certain period of time (three to five years), there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff applied for any measure to train the Plaintiff as a teacher through the institutions such as the college of education, the educational graduate school, etc. for the implementation of the system or to revise the relevant law, and the Plaintiff’s right to petition is not acknowledged as a legal right to demand the implementation, etc. of the above system immediately after having the Plaintiff’s right to petition, and even if considering other circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff or the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, there is no legal or sound right to demand the Plaintiff to implement, etc. of the above system. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is not qualified to sue, and there is no illegal omission, which is the subject of an appeal litigation, and thus, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.