1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance and addition of the judgment identical with that of paragraph (2) as follows. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2)

From 2 pages 10 to 18, the following shall apply:

A person shall be appointed.

C. The Minister of Education, as a recommendation authority to recommend the appointment of the principal of a school, failed to recommend the appointment of the principal to the Plaintiff, and the Superintendent of an Office of Education of Gyeonggi-do, on February 1, 2016, issued a personnel order appointing the Plaintiff to the senior teacher at D elementary school as of March 1, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as "original disposition") the rejection of appointment from among the principals of schools of the Minister of Education and the appointment of senior teachers by the Superintendent of Gyeonggi-do Office of Education.

On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review to revoke the original disposition by specifying the respondent as “the Minister of Education and the Superintendent of Gyeonggi-do Office of Education,” and the purport of the claim as “the rejection of the recommendation for appointment of the principal of the school on March 1, 2016 and revocation of the disposition of demotion.”

E. On June 1, 2016, the defendant specified the respondent as "the Minister of Education," and stated that the plaintiff's subject to the plaintiff's petition review as "an act of refusing to recommend appointment among the principals of the Gyeonggi-do Superintendent of the Office of Education," "an act of refusing to recommend appointment among the representatives of the Gyeonggi-do Superintendent of the Office of Education," but the plaintiff's subject to the petition review as "an act of refusing to recommend appointment among the representatives of the schools of March 1, 2016" is "an act of refusing to recommend appointment among the representatives of the schools of Gyeonggi-do," but as the respondent is specified as "the Minister of Education," the "an act of refusing to recommend appointment among the representatives," which is the President, cannot be the object of the petition review. Accordingly, the plaintiff's appeal is specified as an act of refusing to recommend appointment among the representatives of the schools of March 1, 2016."