208Guhap9119 Revocation of Disposition of Failure to pass an examination for appointment of teacher

00

The superintendent of education of Seoul Metropolitan Government

May 2008 May 20, 200

June 24, 2008

1. On January 31, 2008, the defendant's decision to refuse the second examination for selecting candidates for appointment of teachers of public and secondary schools in 2008 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

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

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Grounds for the additional points;

Article 8 (3) of the Rules on Examination for Competition for Appointment of Public Educational Officials amended by Act No. 809 on November 5, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of this case") provides that "the examination institution may grant additional points within the limit of 10 percent of the full score of the first examination when it was modified (hereinafter referred to as "the examination institution changed)", and Article 11-2 of the Public Educational Officials Act amended by Act No. 723 on October 15, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the Public Educational Officials Act amended by Act No. 7223 on October 15, 2004, the appointment authority may grant additional points within the limit of 10 percent of the full score of the first examination."

(b) Additional points in English certification tests;

However, in a competitive examination for selecting candidates for public secondary school teachers in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the defendant selected English and teachers by raising up to 30 points in addition to TRE, PET (Grade 1), PET pus (hereinafter referred to as TRE, etc.) and TRE in the field of speaking during the English certification test, in order to select English and teachers who can take lessons in English from around 2000, prior to the above amendment. The details of the reflection points are as follows.

- The year of 2001

The reflection of the results of TS acquisition (limited to English and applicants; hereinafter the same shall apply)

* reflect 50% of the acquisition score, and be added to the first score.

A person shall be appointed.

- The year of 2002

TSE - Reflection of P acquired results

* reflect 50% of the acquisition score, and be added to the first score.

A person shall be appointed.

- The year of 2003

The aggregate score of the TS acquisition result

- The year of 2003, 2004

The aggregate score of the TS acquisition result

- The year of 2005

The aggregate score of the TS acquisition result

- The year of 2006

TRE Acquisition Performance and PEST (Grade 2) Acquisition Points

- - The year 2007 2)

Points awarded under TRE, etc.

(c) A competitive examination for selecting candidates for appointment of public middle school teachers in 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "private qualification examination for appointment of public middle school teachers");

A person shall be appointed.

Public announcement and change announcement of appointment examination)

(1) On October 2007, the Defendant pointed out that there is a problem in equity due to the excessive increase of additional points such as TSE through the inspection of the state administration and the media, etc. on the basis of the media, etc., “The change of the points before two months of the examination is problematic, and it is expected that it will be changed to a maximum of four points from the year 2009.”

(2) On October 31, 2007, the Defendant publicly announced the instant appointment test plan under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education Notice No. 2007- 104 (hereinafter “instant public notice”).

(A) Screening method

The appointment examination of this case is conducted by dividing it into the first examination and the second examination, and the second examination is conducted by the written examination of the subject of education (or special education) and the second examination of the major (each allocated point is the full score of 20 points and 80 points in total), the second examination consisting of the essay examination, the interview examination, the interview examination, the class practical ability evaluation (in English) and the practical examination, etc.

(B) Additional points

(1) A regional plus points, a national technical qualification certificate in the field of data processing/office affairs, a PEST, a TOL, an TPPS, and TOEIC additional points.

(2) The score based on the acquisition score, such as TSE, etc.

(3) Change of the additional points for the acquisition points such as TS in the appointment examination for the year 2009.

A person shall be appointed.

(C) Selection of successful applicants

Successful examinees in the first written examination shall be determined in the order of high score scores calculated by adding up the first written examination scores, the first written examination scores, the results (or the results converted from the first written examination scores), the additional points, the TSE, etc. to the number of persons recruited by each subject within 1.3 times each of the number of persons recruited by each subject among those who score at least 40% of the relevant points in the first written examination (education and majors), respectively.

Successful applicants in the second examination shall be determined in the order of the highest score score calculated by adding the score of the first written examination, additional points, college records (or the first written examination records), TSE, etc. and the score of the second written examination to the score of 40% or more of the score by subject of the essay examination, interview, evaluation of practical ability of class, and the score of the second written examination.

(3) However, on November 5, 2007, the Defendant changed the number of points according to the acquisition score, such as TSE, on the ground that the Seoul District Office of Education’s notice No. 2007-106 complies with the provisions of Article 11-2 of the Public Educational Officials Act (hereinafter “instant change notice”).

D. Plaintiff’s application and failure to pass the examination

(1) On February 2, 2006, the Plaintiff graduated from the English education department of Korea University, and passed the first appointment examination of this case, which took effect on December 2, 2007, with the English language and the first examination (the Plaintiff obtained 375 points from the PET pus applied on April 2007). However, the Plaintiff received the second examination result, which took effect between January 17, 2008 and January 19, 169, with the minimum points that passed the second examination, from January 31, 167, with the minimum points that passed the second examination.

(2) On January 31, 2008, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff at the time of announcement of the second appointment examination of this case on January 31, 2008, and made a disposition of failure to pass the examination against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(3) The English and final passing of the appointment examination of this case are as follows:

[In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-8, Gap evidence 2-4, Gap evidence 5-1

Note 5, Gap 6, 7 evidence 1, 2 each of the statements, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Party’s assertion

(1) Plaintiff 1,

(A) Violation of the principle of trust protection.

Around October 2007, the Defendant given a maximum of 30 points for seven consecutive years from the appointment examination, including TSE, to a maximum of 7 consecutive years since the appointment examination. Around October 2007, the Defendant expressed its opinion to maintain a maximum of 30 points in the examination of this case in order to prevent confusion of examinees, notwithstanding the pointed out through the inspection of state administration and media, etc., and the public notice was made in the same content. The Plaintiff was given a high point of time and effort to prepare for the examination of TSE, etc. without any cause attributable to the Plaintiff, by giving a public notice of the change in this case against the above statement of opinion and taking the disposition in this case that rejected the Plaintiff accordingly, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s interest, and thus, the disposition in this case is unlawful as it goes against the principles of trust reports.

(B) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power;

Even without being subject to the restriction under Article 11-2 of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 8(3) of the Rules of this case, the Defendant may grant 30 points to the additional points, such as TES, pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Public Educational Officials Act, Article 11(2) and (3) of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Educational Officials, and Article 8(1) of the Rules of this case. Even if granting maximum of 30 points to the additional points, such as TES, is illegal in violation of Article 11-2 of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 8(3) of the Rules of this case, the Defendant may grant additional points within the limit of 10 percent of the primary examination result pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Rules of this case. The Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s discretionary power by abusing its discretion, even if it was too low even if it was possible to grant up to 6 points, considering the Plaintiff’s time, expenses, labor force, etc.

(2) Defendant:

Pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Rules of this case, the Defendant issued the instant notice by no later than 20 days prior to the date of the examination, and issued the instant amendment notice by no later than seven days prior to the date of the examination. Moreover, the additional points, such as TSS, etc., were generally reduced from 15 to 30 to 1 to 4, and thus are not disadvantageous to any specific person. Thus, the instant disposition is lawful.

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

We also examine the plaintiff's assertion.

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that, without being subject to the restriction under Article 11-2 of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 8(3) of the Rules of this case, the Plaintiff may grant a maximum of 30 points to the additional points with respect to the acquired points, such as TSE, pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Rules of this case. However, Article 11(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act provides, “new recruitment of teachers shall be conducted through an open screening process, and Article 11-2 provides, “No. 11-2 may grant additional points within the scope of 10/100 of the full marks of the first examination.” Thus, the Defendant grants the appointment examination of this case.

The premium points that can be added shall not exceed 10/100 of the full scores of the primary examination.

(2) On the other hand, the principle of protecting trust in the amendment, etc. of the law is derived from the principle of substantial rule of law that, on the basis of reasonable and reasonable trust that the law will continue to exist in the future, a citizen has formed a certain legal status or living relationship corresponding to his or her act, but the State does not protect the former, the citizen's trust in the law and order shall collapse, make it impossible to expect the future legal effect on the present act, and may substantially undermine legal stability. In order to determine whether it violates the principle of protecting trust, on the other hand, the purpose of public interest realized through new administrative actions should be compared and balanced (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Du12899, Nov. 16, 2006).

(3) In the instant case, as seen earlier, ① the purpose and developments leading up to the additional points on the acquisition points such as TS, etc.: (a) the Defendant gave 30 additional points to the acquisition points such as TS for seven years prior to the appointment examination of this case; (b) the Defendant has given prior notice of modification of the examination plan one year prior to the amendment of the examination plan; (c) the Defendant did not give public notice of the change of the additional points of TS, etc. in the appointment examination of this case when he announced the examination plan of November 1, 2006; and (c) the Defendant, upon receiving the notice that the additional points such as TS, etc. were excessively high through the inspection and press of the state administration around October 207, 207, it is problematic that the Defendant changed the examination to two preceding points; and (d) the Defendant intended to change the examination points to the maximum point from 200 to 4 years from 209 to 30 years after the issuance of the examination plan of this case.

From this point to this point, the additional points on the acquisition points of PET pus were given to a maximum of two points, and the public notice was given to abolish the additional points on the acquisition points of TRE and PELT 2. 5 Nevertheless, without any prior notice, the additional points on the acquisition points of TRE, etc. were reduced to a maximum of 30 to 4 points through the public notice of change in this case without any prior notice (the difference in additional points is about 26 points; the period from the public notice of change in this case to the examination date does not seem to fall short of the direction of the preparation; the period from the public notice of change in this case to the examination date, the examination date of 208 years of English and appointment examination date was at least 20 days of the examination date, but it was sufficient to view that there was a reasonable and reasonable change in the examination date to have been an additional point to the public notice of the examination by the public notice of change in the examination method such as TRE, etc., or that there was no reasonable and reasonable change in the examination date.

Therefore, the plaintiff could have passed a test, if he prepared to meet the above reasonable and legitimate standards for passing the test, and the previous standards were maintained as they were, was deprived of the opportunity to prepare for this change due to the change announcement in this case, thereby seriously impairing the trust in passing the test and infringing on the interest of the plaintiff. By correcting the system for granting additional points to be erroneously implemented, the fact that the public notice of the change in this case was made for the public interest purpose of complying with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes should be excessive to the extent that it would be justified even if considering the fact that the public notice

(4) Therefore, it is not permissible to immediately implement the instant examination on the reduced additional points with regard to the acquisition score, such as TRE, in light of the principle of protection of trust under the Constitution. Thus, the instant disposition without having to examine the remaining arguments of the Plaintiff, is deemed unlawful as it violates the principle of protection of trust.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the acceptance of it.

Justices Kim Jong-hwan

Judges Croat

Judge Lee Lee Sang-hoon

1) The previous provisions stipulate that additional points may be granted within the limit of 15 percent.

2) When the defendant amends the examination plan, he has given notice of modification of the examination plan one year prior to the amendment of the examination plan, and the examination date in November 1, 2006 also in 2007.

When publicly announcing the plan, the year 2008 did not make a public announcement that the additional points of TSE, etc. are changed in the examination.

3) The primary test: Education Education 17.2, major 60.33, internal science 18.5, regional origin 2, national technology 1.5, TREIC, etc. 2;

Additional points 4/2: 16.33, interview 23, 7.67, 15.33 per annum of class year, 16.33

4) Even after the amendment of the above law, the Defendant continued to maintain a maximum of 30 additional points on the acquisition score such as TS, etc.

Therefore, it is attributable to the Plaintiff who trusted the additional points solely on the ground that the additional points were contrary to the laws and regulations.

It is difficult to view it as high.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Educational Officials Act

Article 10 (Principles of Appointment)

(1) Public educational officials shall be appointed according to their qualifications, results of retraining, performance, and other proven capabilities.

(2) In appointing public educational officials, equal opportunities for appointment shall be guaranteed to all persons who are qualified as teachers and desire to be appointed, in accordance with their ability to stay in school.

Article 11 (New Employment, etc. of Teachers)

(1) Teachers shall be newly appointed through an open screening process.

(2) The age limit and other necessary qualification requirements for performing the duties to be assigned to the open screening process under paragraph (1), and matters necessary for conducting the open screening, such as the procedures, methods and evaluation elements, shall be determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of National Defense.

Article 11-2 (Additional Points in Employment Examination) (Amended by Act No. 7223, Oct. 15, 2004)

In an open screening process conducted under Article 11 (1), the appointment authority may award applicants falling under attached Table 2 additional points within the scope of 10/100 of the full marks of the primary examination.

[Attachment 2]

Article 11-2 (Kinds of Additional Points)

1. A person (including an prospective graduate from the division of comprehensive teachers' training colleges and colleges of education): A person who applies for an area determined by the appointing authority as a person who has graduated from a teachers' college (including the division of elementary education, such as teachers' training colleges and colleges of education: Provided, That those who have a teacher's career) established under Articles 41 and 43

2. Persons who have graduated from a college of education (including the education at a university) established under Articles 41 and 43 of the Higher Education Act and a college of the training of teachers (excluding the departments of early childhood education and the departments of the elementary education) (including prospective graduates; hereinafter the same shall apply) in the areas determined by the appointing authority;

3. A person who has acquired the qualification for a teacher with a major and sub-major subject indicated together, after completing at least two major subjects;

4. A person who has acquired multiple qualifications for teachers by completing two or more majors.

5. A person who has the ability, qualification, or award performance deemed necessary to perform his/her duties as a teacher in the fields of fishing science, data processing, sports, or technology;

6. A person applying for a condition to work in an area where the appointing authority's home is located for a fixed period among islands and remote areas prescribed in Article 2 of the Act on the Promotion of Education in Islands and Remote Areas;

Article 33 (Delegation, etc. of Authority for Appointment)

(1) The President may delegate part of his/her right to appoint to the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development, and the Minister of Education and Human Resources Management may delegate part of his/her right to appoint to the heads of educational institutions, educational administrative agencies, or educational research institutions.

The Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20740 on February 29, 2008)

Article 3 (Delegation of Authority for Appointment)

(5) The Minister of Education, Science and Technology shall delegate the following authority for appointment to the superintendent of education under Article 33 of the Act:

3. Appointment of the head, assistant head, deputy head, or teacher;

Article 9 (New Employment of Teachers)

(1) Teachers shall be newly recruited through an open screening process.

(2) An open screening referred to in paragraph (1) shall be conducted by the person authorized to appoint the teacher concerned. In such cases, the head of the national school may entrust such an screening to the superintendent of education in which the school is located.

Article 11 (Method, etc. of Open Screening)

(1) An open screening process under Article 11 (1) of the Act shall be conducted by means of a written examination, practical examination, interview, etc.

(2) The results of written examination under the provisions of paragraph (1) may be added to the evaluation elements deemed necessary, such as the results, etc. during the period of attending school, in order to select a candidate for excellent teachers.

(3) Matters necessary for conducting an open screening under paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development.

Article 24 (Delegation Provisions)

Matters necessary for the enforcement of this Decree shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development.

Rules on Examination for Selection of Candidates for Appointment of Public Educational Officials

Article 6 (Stages of Examination)

(1) The examination shall be conducted by dividing it into the preliminary examination and the secondary examination, but no applicant shall apply for the secondary examination unless he/she passes the preliminary examination.

Article 7 (Method of Examination)

(1) The examination shall be conducted on the basis of a written examination, practical examination, and interview: Provided, That where the number of applicants falls short of the expected number of persons to be employed or the examination implementing agency deems it necessary, the examination may be exempted from part of the examination.

(3) The practical examination shall be conducted, if it is necessary to conduct a practical examination, such as preliminary and practical subjects, and the practical ability corresponding to the position to be employed shall be dead.

(4) The interview examination shall be a teacher with an aptitude, a teaching specialist, a character, and a knowledge as a teacher.

(5) The preliminary examination shall be an essay-type written examination, multiple-choice examination or essay-type written examination and practical examination, the secondary examination shall be an essay-type written examination, practical examination and interview, and the head of the examination implementing agency may, if deemed necessary in consideration of the test schedule, etc., conduct a practical examination combining the preliminary examination and secondary examination.

Article 8 (Examination Subjects and Allocation Ratio)

(1) Examination subjects and allocated examination percentage shall be determined by the examination implementing agency.

(2) With respect to any person (including any prospective graduate; hereinafter the same shall apply) who graduated from a teachers' college, college of education (including the education of universities and colleges; hereinafter the same shall apply) and comprehensive teachers' training college (hereinafter referred to as "universities' colleges, etc.") referred to in Article 43 of the Higher Education Act, an examination implementing institution may add scores calculated by converting the scores to the results of the first examination on the results (the results of the first examination conducted on behalf of the graduate of a school other than the teachers' college, etc.) during the period of the school at a certain rate.

(3) The institution conducting the examination may grant persons falling under any of the following subparagraphs additional points within the scope of 10 percent of the full scores of the first examination (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development No. 809 on November 5, 2002):

1. Persons who have graduated from teachers' colleges, etc. (excluding those who have teachers' experience), and apply for areas determined by the Superintendent of an Office of Education;

2. A person who takes an examination on condition that he/she will work in an island or remote area prescribed by the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education;

Article 9 (Execution and Public Announcement of Examination)

(1) The examination shall be conducted when a person holding a qualification certificate is newly appointed as a teacher.

(2) When an examination agency intends to conduct an examination, it shall publicly announce the date, time, place, method, allocation ratio of marks to the subjects, qualifications for application for examination, procedures for submission of original documents, and other matters necessary for the execution of the examination by 20 days before the examination date. In cases of changing the details of the examination, it shall be publicly announced by no later than seven days before the examination date.