In a case where Party A, a local government, entered into an employment contract with Party A, and worked as school accounting staff at each school located within the jurisdiction of the local government, and Party B, etc., were required to pay remuneration based on Grade 1 to Grade 3 under the basic guidelines for the formulation of the school accounting budget in 2004, but the grounds for the re-determination of salary class occurred since the provisions for 1 to Grade 3 were deleted under the basic guidelines for the formulation of the school accounting budget in 2005, and the basic guidelines for the formulation of the school accounting budget in 2012 stipulate that Party A shall apply the salary table of Grade 9 to the school accounting staff, the case holding that Party A cannot be deemed to have paid the difference between Party B, etc., based on the premise that Party A’s local government’s regular retirement from the time of employment of Party B, etc., was based on the premise that Party B, etc. would have been on a regular retirement.

In a case where Party A entered into an employment contract with a local government, Party B, etc. worked as an employee of the school accounting of each level within the jurisdiction of a local government, the basic guidelines for the formation of the school accounting budget in 2004 provided that Party B shall pay remuneration based on Grades 1 through 3 of the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations, but the basic guidelines for the formulation of the school accounting budget in 2005 provided that Party B’s salary table shall be applied to Party B’s employees in the budget in 2012, and the basic guidelines for the formulation of the school accounting’s salary class 9 shall not apply to Party B’s salary table based on the amount of Grade 9 of the school accounting’s salary in 204 and the basic guidelines for the formulation of the budget for the school accounting’s salary class 20 and 205 shall not apply to Party B’s regular salary class 9 of the school accounting’s salary class based on the previous basic guidelines for the formulation of the budget for the school accounting’s salary class 20 or more.

Articles 30-2(5) and 30-3(6) of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Amended by Act No. 7398, Mar. 24, 2005); Articles 30-2(5) and 30-3(6) of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Amended by Act No. 7701, Dec. 7, 2005); Article 9 of the former Accounting Rules of National and Public Elementary and Secondary Schools (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 146, May 2, 2012); Article 10 of the former Accounting Rules of Daegu Metropolitan City (Amended by Act No. 498, Oct. 13, 2006); Article 2 of the Local Education Autonomy Act; Article 30-2(5) and 30-3(6) of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19421, Dec. 14, 2013); Article 9 of the former Accounting Rules of the Local Education Autonomy Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 197(14)

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Professor, Attorneys Job Offer-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu Metropolitan City (Attorney Woo-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2014Na22926 decided September 9, 2015

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Case history and key issue

A. Case history

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

The plaintiffs were the school accounting staff of various levels of schools located within the jurisdiction of the defendant, and the defendant is the local government in charge of the education, science, technology, sports and other academic affairs of the local government pursuant to Article 2 of the Local Education Autonomy Act.

In accordance with the basic guidelines on the compilation of school accounting budget in 2004 to 2007, the Defendant entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiffs as a single-year contract worker, and entered into an employment contract on September 2007 or October 2007 by converting the contract into a life contract worker.

From June 2009 to February 2, 2012, the Defendant paid wages to Plaintiff 8 and Plaintiff 18 based on the remuneration of public officials in employment, the remuneration of public officials in local technical service from March 2012 to May 2012, and the remaining Plaintiffs based on the remuneration of public officials in local technical service from June 2009 to February 2012.

(2) The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in this case by asserting that the defendant should pay the difference between the regular salary in accordance with the amount of salary in class 9 of a public official in technical service who was employed at the time of employment and the actual paid wage in accordance with the amount of salary in class 9 of a public official in technical service. Accordingly, the basic guidelines for the formulation of the school accounting budget in 2004 provided that local public official in technical service should pay remuneration based on class 1 to class 1 to class 3 of a public official in technical service who was employed in technical service, but in the basic guidelines for the formulation of the school accounting budget in 2005, the grounds for the re-determination of salary class occurred, and in the formulation of the school accounting budget in 2012, the defendant provided that the salary table of class

B. Issues

The key issue of this case is ① According to the above basic school accounting’s budget compilation guidelines, whether the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs a regular increase of wages every year in accordance with the amount of salaries of public officials in technical service 9 retroactively at the time of employment (ground of appeal No. 1); and ② whether the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agreed to pay wages in accordance with the same remuneration system as local public officials by applying the remuneration regulations of local public officials as they are (

2. Whether the above basic guidelines for school accounting budget compilation are applicable retroactively (ground of appeal No. 1)

A. Articles 30-2(5) and 30-3(6) of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act (amended by Act No. 7398, Mar. 24, 2005) provide that matters necessary for the establishment and operation of the school accounting shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. Article 9 of the former Rules on Accounting of National and Public Elementary and Secondary Schools ( repealed by Ordinance No. 146, May 2, 2012) upon delegation thereof (amended by Ordinance No. 7398, Oct. 13, 2006) provides that the superintendent of education shall prepare basic guidelines for the formulation of the budget of the school accounting and instruct the head of the school to which he/she belongs (However, the former Rules amended by Ordinance No. 7398, Mar. 24, 2005 shall be prescribed by the Educational Rules for the school accounting, and accordingly, requires the Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education to formulate the Daegu Basic Guidelines for the Budget.

The Defendant’s basic guidelines on the compilation of the school accounting budget in 2004 and 2005, which were formulated based on Article 9 of the above accounting rules, provides that “The remuneration of the school accounting personnel, such as the Plaintiffs, shall be paid by applying mutatis mutandis the Local Skilled Service 10 or the Local Public Officials Remuneration Rules, etc., within budgetary limits (hereinafter “instant provisions”).

The meaning of the applicable provisions of this case is to determine the criteria for the amount of remuneration for the school accounting personnel, not to apply all local public officials’ remuneration regulations to the school accounting personnel. In addition, even if it is prescribed in the basic guidelines for the formulation of the budget for the school accounting in 2005 that allows a raise in salary above class 4 in salary class, it cannot be deemed that the grounds for re-Definition of salary class for the school accounting

B. Meanwhile, the basic guidelines for the formulation of the school accounting budget in 2012 prepared by the Defendant provide that “The remuneration for the staff of the Gu fostering association who received remuneration in accordance with class 10 of the skills due to the abolition of class 10 of the functions of local public officials shall be applied”.

However, the basic principles of the budget of the school accounting in 2012 also stipulate that the remuneration paid in accordance with class 10 shall be applied based on the amount of class 9 that was paid according to the abolition of class 10 in local technical positions, and the standard of remuneration is not specifically different from the basic guidelines of the budget of the school accounting in 2012. Therefore, even when considering the basic guidelines of the budget of the school accounting in 2012, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have paid the difference of wages after re-calculated the Plaintiffs’ salary class every year from the time of employment of the Plaintiffs on the premise that the Plaintiffs

C. The lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Plaintiffs’ salary class should be re-calculated from the time of employment on a yearly basis and that the difference should be paid. The lower court is justifiable in its determination based on the foregoing legal doctrine. In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation of the basic guidelines for the formulation of the school accounting budget, or by omitting judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

3. Whether to agree on the payment of remuneration (Ground of appeal No. 2)

The lower court determined that it cannot be recognized that the Defendant agreed to pay the wages calculated by applying the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations, etc. to the Plaintiffs explicitly or implicitly.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)