Whether the reorganization falls under Article 3 of the Addenda to the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act and Article 4 (1) 1 of the former Judicial Records Act

Article 3 of the Addenda to the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act and Article 4 (1) 1 of the former Judicial Records Act (amended by Act No. 4200 of Jan. 13, 1990) mean the position of Grade 9 or higher corresponding to the category of court clerical service in the series of court clerical service among the court clerical service groups in attached Table 1 of Article 4 (1) of the former Rules of Public Officials (amended by Act No. 1256 of Jun. 14, 1993). Since it cannot be deemed that all grades 9 or higher in general service corresponding to the court clerical service group in the above attached Table refer to the position of Grade 9 or higher in the category of general service corresponding to the court clerical service group, the liquidation shall not be deemed to be the position of Grade 9 or higher in the category of liquidation under the above attached Table.

Article 3 of the Addenda to the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act; Article 3 of the Addenda to the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act (amended by Act No. 4200 of Jan. 13, 1990); Article 4 (1) 1 of the Addenda to the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act (refer to Article 4 (1) 1 of the current Certified Judicial Scriveners Act); Article 4 (1) 1 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act; Article 4 (1) of the former Rules of Public Officials of the Court (amended by Act No. 1256 of Jun. 14, 1993)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Minister of Court Administration

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu11338 delivered on December 15, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Article 3 of the Addenda to the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act and Article 4 (1) 1 of the former Judicial Records Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4200 of Jan. 13, 1990) mean the position of Grade 9 or higher corresponding to the category of court affairs in the series of court affairs in the field of court affairs in the attached Table 1 of Article 4 (1) of the Rules on Public Officials of the Court (wholly amended by Act No. 1256 of Jun. 14, 1993). Since it cannot be deemed that the position of Grade 9 or higher in general service corresponding to the court affairs in the above attached Table is the position of Grade 9 or higher in the field of court affairs in the field of administrative affairs in the above attached Table, it shall not be deemed that the position of Grade 9 or higher in general service corresponding to the court affairs in the field of adjusted affairs in

The court below is just in its purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the provisions of Article 3 of the Addenda to the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act and Article 4 (1) 1 of the former Judicial Records Act, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for argument.

On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records of this case, even if the plaintiff was actually subject to the duties belonging to the category of the court office, it is merely a temporary or intermittent assistance in the duties, such as a legal assistant, etc., which is incidental to the duties of the court office of the competent court, due to the suspension of the duties of the competent court. Thus, it is reasonable to determine that such fact alone cannot be deemed that the plaintiff was in a position higher than that of another legal assistant, and there is no error of misunderstanding facts in violation of the rule of experience, such as the theory of lawsuit, or misunderstanding of facts in violation of the purpose of the law of the Certified Judicial Scriveners and the interpretation of Article 3 of the Addenda. There

On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that there is a case where a career of secretary in the past is recognized as a certified judicial scrivener, but recognized the fact that the career of secretary in the past, who was appointed after November 20, 198, without recognizing his qualification. In light of the above recognized facts, the former Certified Judicial Scriveners Act and the former Judicial Inspector Act merely require legal knowledge and ability necessary to perform the duties of a certified judicial scrivener, and furthermore, in light of the purport of demanding the career of the former judicial scrivener, the defendant's disposition of this case cannot be determined as being in violation of equity or arbitrary law enforcement. Such judgment of the court below is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the principle of equity, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no merit

On the fourth ground

Article 3 of the Addenda to the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act and Article 4 (1) of the former Judicial Affairs Act cannot be deemed as a law that violates the constitutional provisions of the assertion of the theory, and therefore, the arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)