2017Nu36955 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Passing

A

BThe Museum Director

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap73924 decided February 3, 2017

May 16, 2017

May 30, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. On August 31, 2016, the defendant revoked the disposition of revocation of passing an alternative human resource bank (children's display and education) and the additional passing of the next braille against the plaintiff on August 61, 2016.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional parts, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

○ 10 10 Doctrine of the first instance judgment, '10 Doctrine', and next '15 Doctrine of the document screening type' are added.

○ 제1심판결서 11쪽 3행 '점' 다음에 아래 내용을 추가한다. (B박물관은 일제강점기 이전까지의 역사를 다루는 기관이므로 관련학과를 판단함에 있어서도 B박물관의 이와 같은 직무상 특성을 고려하여야 한다. 원고는 응시원서에 "석사 시절에는 관심분야의 조합인 문화인류학과 심리학을 접목시킨 '문화 심리학'을 전공으로 '문화예술체험이 심리적 행복에 기여하는 요인에 대한 질적 연구'를 주제로 하여 석사논문을 썼습니다.", "그동안 쌓아왔던 박물관 교육 경력들과, 박물관 관련학인 민속학, 교육 관련학인 심리학적 지식을 잘 활용하여 주제와 대상에 맞는 재밌고, 참신한 아이디어로 박물관 전시 및 교육에 이바지하고 싶습니다."라고 기재하였는데, 위 심사위원 2인은 위와 같은 응시원서의 내용에도 불구하고 원고가 이 사건 임용자격기준 제1호에 해당하지 않는다고 판단하였는바, 원고가 제출한 갑 제37 내지 42, 57호증의 기재를 고려하여 살펴보더라도 위 심사위원 2인의 판단이 현저히 부당하다고 보이지 않는다)

The following is added to the "11th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 1st 200. However, the circumstance that the recruitment notice of this case includes "the relevant department of education, museum, art, or class of class"

○ ○ 14th of the judgment of the first instance is recognized as '4th of the 14th instance judgment'. The following is added.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had unfairly maintained the Plaintiff’s career by requesting official questioning to each museum upon the process of the instant trial, but it cannot be recognized solely with the statement of No. 58, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge it.

○ The following is added to “14th day of the first instance judgment, 11th day of the 14th day.” (In light of the records in No. 12-1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s museum instructor’s career constitutes “where the working period and time are unclear” under the established rules of the Ministry of Personnel Management.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge, the highest judge

Judges Lee Jong-chul

Judge Cho Jae-soo