Whether the academic background and career experience of a public official can be included in the definition of each salary grade in case where a university was graduated at night within a distance possible to attend school due to a public official, etc. (negative)

In full view of the purport of Article 8(2) of the Regulations on the Remuneration of Public Officials [Attachment 2] and Article 3 of the former Rules on the Remuneration of Public Officials (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1689, Jan. 8, 200) and Article 8(2) of the same Decree, where the career overlaps with that of university graduates, it shall be limited to one of the favorable careers, and where such career overlap with that of university graduates, it shall be prescribed in [Attachment 22] and Article 3. of the same Regulations provides that if such career overlap with that of university graduates, only one of them shall be included in the calculation of the academic career at night, and if such career overlap with that of university graduates, it shall be determined that the academic background should not be included in the calculation of the above academic background at night, but it shall be determined that there is no conflict between the above two during the night session and the entire academic experience of university graduates. However, if it is recognized that the academic background should be included in the calculation of the academic background at night as well as in the calculation of the academic career at night.

Articles 8(2) and 9(1)1 and 9(2)2 of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations [Attachment 22] and 3. The former Public Officials Remuneration Regulations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16689, Jan. 8, 200) [Attachment 23] and 2.

Plaintiff

The head of the District Office of Education in North Deputy Office of Education in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Hunting an Attorney)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu30563 delivered on July 16, 1998

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In defining a new salary grade for the plaintiff who was appointed as a middle school teacher as of March 1, 1994, the court below affirmed the first salary grade as 16 grade by including his career as a teacher of an elementary school or a middle school and his career as a teacher of an elementary school or an academic career as a four-year and at four-year and night university as at the time of the appointment of an elementary school teacher in calculation of his salary grade respectively. However, on March 29, 194, the court below acknowledged the first salary grade as 12 grade by recognizing the Plaintiff’s career as a teacher of an elementary school before the appointment as a teacher of an elementary school on the ground that the Plaintiff’s night university was committed while he was in office as a teacher of an elementary school, and thus, the first salary grade was corrected as 12 salary grade on March 7, 1997, and rejected the Plaintiff’s application for correction of his beginning salary grade on March 13, 199.

In addition, the court below determined that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was an action seeking cancellation of the disposition of this case on March 13, 1997 by the Ministry of Education Disciplinary Review Committee seeking cancellation of the disposition of this case on the ground that the lawsuit of this case was brought on July 22, 1997, which was rejected as of June 9, 1997, and thus lawful procedures were followed. Meanwhile, the court below determined that "if the academic background and the career overlap with those of the public educational official, only one of them shall be included in the academic background" in [Attachment 22] 3] [Attachment 23] (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1689, Jan. 8, 200; Presidential Decree No. 1689; hereinafter the same shall apply] and that it is unlawful for the university to recognize that the academic background of the university of this case should not be included in the night school age calculation for the period of time without the change in the academic background of the university's graduation from the university.

2. In light of the records and relevant provisions, it is clear that the lawsuit in this case was seeking the cancellation of the disposition in this case as of March 13, 1997 by the plaintiff's refusal of the plaintiff's request for correction of the salary grade, and it goes through legitimate pre-trial procedure. Moreover, there is no ground to view that the revocation of the disposition in this case separately made by the defendant prior to the disposition in this case as of March 29, 1994 is not allowed by law, on the ground that the defendant's refusal of the correction of salary grade as of March 29,

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the disposition of this case was lawful is justified, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. In full view of the purport of Article 8(2) of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations (Attachment Table 22) and Article 8(2) of the same Act, where the career overlap with that of a university while serving as a public official, it shall be limited to one of the favorable careers. In full view of the purport of Article 8(2) of the same Decree, where the career overlaps with that of a public official, it shall be limited to only one of them, and where a non- high-ranking 3 overlaps with that of a university, one of them shall be included in the calculation of the salary grade, and where such career overlaps with that of a public official, etc., if a university graduate while serving as a public official, it shall not be recognized, but if a university graduate at night at a school, it shall be excluded from the recognition of academic background in that the university graduate conflict with that of a public official, etc., but if a university graduate within a distance possible, it shall be interpreted that it does not necessarily conflict with that of a public official, etc.

In addition, even if such interpretation is made as above, there are cases where it is favorable for a university graduate to recognize the career period at night compared to the inclusion of the career period in the relation with the additional years prescribed in [Attachment Table 23] high school 3. Moreover, there are cases where only a certain period is included according to the type of the career, while the career period at night is more favorable than the case where the total period of the university graduate at night is always included in the calculation of the school age, it cannot be said that the above interpretation is unreasonable to recognize the university graduate at night as an exceptional academic background.

In addition, Article 9(1)1 of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations provides that a public educational official’s salary grade shall be re-defined in the event of changes in academic achievement, but this provision does not require any changes in academic achievement at all times, but where a student graduated from a school, etc., he/she shall not be subject to the premise that a change in academic achievement occurs in the salary grade at all times, and where a change in additional training prescribed in [Attachment Table 23] 3 [Attachment Table 23] may result in a change in the definition of salary grade

Therefore, even according to the provisions of [Attachment 23] non-high 2., where a graduate from a night university within a distance possible to attend school due to a public official, etc., the court below held that the two should be included in the definition of salary grade as well as the academic achievement from the university, but the career period due to a public official's employment, etc. should not be included in the definition of salary grade. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the above relevant provisions, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error has merit

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-chul (Presiding Justice)