In a case where Party A’s Superintendent amended and publicly announced the “Rules on the Evaluation of Additional Points for Public Educational Officials (Aggravated, etc.)” in the Do Office of Education to determine the aggregate points of additional points, such as the work in islands and remote areas of public educational officials, and Party B, etc. who worked or work in islands and remote areas, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the public notice on the grounds that the opportunity to be registered in the list of candidates for promotion or to be placed in priority within the list was infringed upon by the public notice, the case holding that the lawsuit seeking revocation of the public notice is unlawful

In a case where Gap’s Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education revised and announced “1.80 Regulations on the Evaluation of Additional Points for Public Educational Officials” in the public notice of the Office of Education of Do Office of Education (hereinafter “Public Educational Officials’ Office of Education”) on the basis of “1.80”, and in a case where Gap filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of public notice that the opportunity to be registered in the list or to be placed in priority within the list was infringed upon due to the revision of public notice by teachers Eul, etc. who worked or worked in islands and remote areas, the case holding that the public official’s provision on the evaluation of work experience does not directly change the public official’s specific rights and duties without any other intermediate action, but it does not result in a direct change in the public official’s specific rights and duties without any other intermediate action, and the public notice itself does not directly affect the public official’s legal status, and thus, the lawsuit seeking the revocation of public notice is unlawful as it does not directly affect the specific rights or legal status of Eul, etc.

Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 14 (2), 40 (1), and 41 (1) of the Public Educational Officials Act

Plaintiff 1 and 28 others (Attorney Noh Jeong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeong-nam, Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education (Law Firm Dong-nam, Attorney Han Hong-man, Counsel for defendant-appellant

March 22, 2016

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s announcement of May 21, 2015, which was made by the Gyeongnam-do Office of Education (hereinafter “Seoul-do Office of Education”) on May 21, 2015, revoked the portion of the aggregate points of “4.2 dispatch (common dispatch), 6.6. dispatch (domestic dispatch), 6.6.6.6.4, 6.6.6.6.5.6.6.6.6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 1.

1. Case history

A. On May 21, 2015, the Defendant amended and publicly announced the Regulations on the Estimation of Points for Public Educational Officials (No. 2015-13) (No. 2015-13), and [Attachment Table 1] of the amended [Attachment Table 1] provides that the sum of each additional point of "4.2 dispatch (common dispatch), 6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.3.6.6.6.6.6. 6.6. 6. (hereinafter "the Notice of this case"), 1.8 of the sum of the career point of the career point of 2.0 billion won, and Article 2 [Attachment Table 1] of the Addenda provides that the sum of the additional points of "1.8 of the aggregate of the career point of 1.8 shall be assessed on December 31, 2016; and the first one shall be assessed on December 31, 2017; and the second one shall be assessed on December 18, 2017.

B. On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a petition review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers seeking the revocation of the instant notice, but the said claim was dismissed on February 24, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs are teachers who have worked or worked in island remote areas, and according to the former provisions before the revision, they were registered in the list of candidates for promotion or may be designated in preference to the list, but the above opportunity was violated due to the revision of the public notice of this case. Since the public notice of this case violates the right of equality under the Constitution, and violates the principle of trust protection, it is illegal for the defendant to revise the public notice of this case to abuse and abuse discretionary power.

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. The defendant's main defense

The notice of this case does not directly affect the plaintiffs' rights or legal interests, and thus does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

If a certain notice itself has the character to regulate the specific rights and obligations or legal relations of the citizens directly as a result of other enforcement acts without mediating other enforcement acts, it constitutes an administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du2506, Sept. 22, 2006). However, if it affects the specific rights and obligations or legal relations of the citizens only through specific enforcement acts as an administrative rule with a general and abstract character, it may not be a disposition subject to appeal litigation.

Article 14 (2) of the Public Educational Officials Act provides that promotion or recommendation for promotion of a public educational official shall be made within three times the number of vacant positions in the order of priority in the list of candidates for promotion, and according to Article 40 (1) of the former Regulations on Promotion of Public Educational Officials (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26833, Dec. 31, 2015), the list of candidates for promotion is to be registered in the order of candidates for promotion with higher points than the sum of the rating points, after evaluating the 70 points of career rating, the 100 points of work performance rating, and the 18 points of work performance rating, respectively. According to Article 41 (1) of the same Act, for those who are calculated the additional points in the relevant position as public educational official, the list of candidates shall be added to the aggregate points of each rating point under Article 40.

In light of the relevant legal principles and provisions, the provisions related to the appraisal of service experience of public officials, such as the instant notice, do not directly change the specific rights and duties of public officials without mediating any other enforcement act. It should be deemed that there is an administrative disposition that affects the legal status of public officials only when the change of status occurs through personnel measures (registration in the list of candidates for promotion and the measures for promotion) of the competent administrative agency based on the rating point under the provision. Accordingly, the instant notice does not by itself fall under an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation because it does not directly affect the plaintiffs' specific rights or legal status, and thus, the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the instant notice is unlawful.

Even if the disposition of the instant public notice is recognized, any unfavorable disposition against the principal’s will may not be initiated without going through the review and decision of the Appeal Committee for Teachers within 30 days from the date on which the said disposition was known pursuant to Article 53(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act, Article 16(1) of the State Public Officials Act, and Article 9(1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status. However, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for an appeal review on August 12, 2015 after the lapse of 30 days from May 21, 2015, which is the public notice date of the instant public notice, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiffs filed a petition for an appeal review with the Appeal Committee for Teachers within 30 days from the date on which the Plaintiffs became aware of the said disposition. Thus, the instant

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)