1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Case history

A. On November 23, 2012, the Plaintiff was employed as an execution officer at the office of B District Court enforcement officers, and served for four years from the same date.

B. On November 9, 2016, the Committee for the Selection of Executive Officers at the Office of Execution Officers of the B District Court consented to re-employment of the Plaintiff as enforcement officer, and C, the representative enforcement officer of the Office of Execution Officers of the B District Court, prepared a written confirmation to the effect that “A Plaintiff has not received any petition, disciplinary action or criminal punishment due to any misconduct while serving as enforcement officer” on the same day.

C. On November 10, 2016, C filed an application with the Defendant for permission for re-employment of the Plaintiff as an enforcement officer, along with the written consent of the Committee for Selection of the Executive Officers and the written confirmation.

On November 22, 2016, the Defendant notified the representative execution officer of the B District Court’s office of the enforcement officer of the B District Court that he/she would not allow the re-employment

(hereinafter referred to as “instant nonpermission”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Article 21(2) of the Enforcement Rule, which requires the permission of the chief of the district court to which he belongs in the employment of the office clerical staff of the representative execution officer, is null and void, as it limits the representative enforcement authority or the rights and obligations of the executive officer by granting the authority to permit the employment or re-employment of the executive officer to the chief of the district court without specific delegation of superior laws and regulations. The instant non-permission notification is based on Article 21(2) of the invalid

B. The rejection of the instant case ought to be revoked on a procedural basis, inasmuch as the grounds and reasons for the instant disposition are not presented at all.

C. Re-employment of the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff’s absence of restrictions on or grounds for disqualification of enforcement officers under relevant statutes, the consent to re-employment by the committee for selecting enforcement officers, and confirmation by the representative execution officer.