1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiffs confirmed that the notice of the position lecture, etc. issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on December 30, 2016 was null and void. From January 1, 2017 to December 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a claim for payment of consolation money, respectively, because the monthly average wage and the monthly average wage actually received by the Plaintiffs were the difference between the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ actual monthly average wage, and the disposition of the Defendant’s above position lecture, etc. constitutes tort.

On the other hand, the court of first instance accepted both the plaintiffs' claims ① and ②, but all the claims were dismissed.

Accordingly, since only the defendant appealed against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance as to the above ① and ② claims against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, the subject of adjudication of this court is limited to the claim for confirmation of invalidation of notification of the lecture of position, etc. ① and ② the claim for payment of the difference from January 1, 2017 to the recovery date of the malicious position.

2. The reasons for the recognition of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the part falling under the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance prior to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts used or added by the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

The 5th parallel 19th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 2th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel

B) The legal nature of the instant Municipal Ordinance and the Enforcement Rule is autonomous laws and shall not be deemed as the rules of employment. Even if the instant Enforcement Rule constitutes the rules of employment, Article 19 of the instant Ordinance, which provides for the dismissal of “persons whose skills have been significantly lowered as a result of the performance evaluation,” which is higher than the instant Enforcement Rule, shall be deemed to be the rules of employment. The C City Art Group’s Service Regulations (hereinafter “instant Service Regulations”).

Article 26. Do.