1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against plaintiffs C, D, and B shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff C, D, and B's claims are all dismissed.

3.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs have passed a competitive recruitment examination conducted by the defendant pursuant to Article 28(2)6 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 16(1) of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials, and Article 29(1) of the Decree on the Examination for Appointment of Public Officials and served as a defensive public official at the A Office Management Office.

B. (1) The “technical career document screening and interview planning” applied by Plaintiff B on May 8, 2006 is attached to the “technical career screening and interview planning.”

2. The entry is as follows: (2) The guidance on the receipt of applications for a competitive recruitment examination for career-based public officials applied by Plaintiffs C and D on or around November 2013; (3) the “plan for the screening of career-based competitive employment documents for career-based public officials in technical service”; and (4) the “plan for career-based competitive recruitment examinations for public officials in technical service” are as shown in the attached Form.

3. The entry is as follows: ③ Plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs B, C, and D (hereinafter “Plaintiff E, etc.”) applied on November 4, 2014 (hereinafter “Plaintiff E”), “Public Notice of Employment of Public Officials in Charge of the Protection of Government Office Office Offices”, “A document screening program for employment of public officials in charge of the protection of government office building,” “A document screening program for employment of public officials in charge of the protection of government office building,” and “attached Form.”

4. The description; and

C. Plaintiff B was employed on July 3, 2006, Plaintiff C, and D on December 20, 2013, and Plaintiff E, etc. on December 20, 2014, respectively.

The Plaintiffs asserted on January 29, 2016 that “the private career was not included in the salary class or that 100% was not reflected in the salary class at a public institution, etc.” against the Defendant

5. A request for the correction of a salary grade was made, such as the description of the application for the correction of a salary grade.

However, on March 14, 2016, the Defendant did not recognize the work experience prior to new employment by employment pursuant to Article 28(2)6 of the State Public Officials Act as similar work experience in the same field (100%). Thus, the Defendant recognized the work experience in the State and local government police officers recognized as similar work experience in the same field and recognized as 80 percent in the case of work experience in the State and local government police officers assigned for special guard of public institutions, 70 percent in the case of work experience in the public institution and private service experience.