Plaintiff 1 and one other

Superintendent of Daejeon Metropolitan City Office of Education

July 24, 2008

Daejeon District Court Decision 2005Guhap427 Decided April 16, 2008

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's decision of January 8, 2005 also revoked the decision of the first instance that rejected the examination against the plaintiffs on January 8, 2005 in the competition examination for selecting candidates for appointment of public and secondary school teachers in Daejeon Metropolitan City.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, in addition to adding the following judgments to the new argument of the plaintiffs in this case, it is identical to the entry of each corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Thus, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on new arguments

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Article 11-2 of the Public Educational Officials Act provides that additional points may be given only within the scope of 10% of the full scores of the primary test. Thus, no additional points may be given in excess of 10%. Nevertheless, as the defendant grants 1 applicant for the physical subject and 1 applicant for the historical subject additional points other than 10 additional points, the additional points for the above applicant became 12 to 13 additional points as a result of granting 2-3 additional points to the person holding a certificate related to computer in addition to 10 additional points in the examination in the instant case. If the additional points for the above applicant are limited to 10 points, the Plaintiffs were able to pass the primary test because the examination results are higher than the above applicant.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

Article 31 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 8327, Mar. 29, 2007) provides for the additional points equivalent to 10% of the full scores in cases where state agencies, local governments, military units, national and public schools, etc. conduct an employment examination, and Article 11-2 of the Public Educational Officials Act provides for the additional points that are granted to certain applicants, multiple majors, and qualified holders in information processing field, etc. as graduates of teachers' colleges or colleges of education within 10% of the full scores of the primary examination. The above additional points system is a separate additional points different from the legislative purpose, purport, and subject of application.

Therefore, Article 11-2 of the Public Educational Officials Act cannot be viewed as a provision on the basis and limit of the additional points given under the Public Educational Officials Act, and it cannot be viewed as a separate provision that provides the additional points under the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, so even if the total additional points exceed the limit of the additional points under Article 11-2 of the Public Educational Officials Act as the defendant grants the additional points under the Public Educational Officials Act separately from the granting of the additional points under the Public Educational Officials Act, such additional points do not violate the Public Educational Officials Act’s additional points. Therefore,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Young-chul (Presiding Judge)