In a case where Party B et al. established an employment contract with a local government and worked as a school accounting employee at a school level, and sought payment of the difference between wages under regular salary grade and actual paid wages against Party B et al. on the ground that the personnel management rules formulated by the Office of Education under the jurisdiction of the local government Party A set the remuneration standard for the school accounting employee at “10-class public officials in technical service”, the case holding that the above personnel management rules, etc. provide that the remuneration standard for the school accounting employee shall be paid according to the 10-class public officials in technical service, and it cannot be deemed that Party B et al.’s regular salary class system

Article 2 of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Article 5 [Attachment 8] [Attachment 8] and Article 13 of the former Public Officials Remuneration Regulations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15551, Dec. 27, 1997)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Du-pop et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Metropolitan City (Attorney Jin-Jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 2014Na48962 Decided October 28, 2015

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the fourth ground for appeal

The lower court determined that the head of each school of this case was merely an affiliated agency of the Defendant, and that the Defendant, a local government that established and operated each school of this case, concluded an employment contract with the Plaintiffs, an employer of school accounting, as the employer.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the confirmation of parties to a labor contract, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

A. The lower court determined that, based on its reasoning, the Plaintiffs’ wage system ought to be applied to the Plaintiffs, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, on the grounds that the “Personnel Management Regulations (Plan) for Personnel of the School of Various Schools” prepared by the Office of Education in around 1997 by the Defendant-affiliated Office of Education set the criteria for the remuneration of the school accounting staff, such as the Plaintiffs, constitutes a salary class-10 public officials in technical service, which is differentiated according to the number of years of service, and that a promotion is also made according to the same criteria as the public officials in technical service.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is difficult to accept.

① Around 197, the Office of Education affiliated with the Defendant established the “Personnel Management Regulations for Employees of Various Schools of School” (hereinafter referred to as the “Personnel Management Regulations”) and enacted and implemented the Personnel Management Regulations in accordance with the said Personnel Management Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “Personnel Management Regulations”).

② The Personnel Management Regulations of this case stipulate that the remuneration of the school accounting employees, such as the Plaintiffs, shall be paid on the basis of the 10th class salary amount of public officials in technical service in [Attachment 8] of the Rules on the Remuneration of Public Officials. The above Rules on the Remuneration of Public Officials [Attachment 8] shall be limited to those of public officials classified under Article 5 (1) of the former Rules on the Remuneration of Public Officials (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15551, Dec. 27, 1997; hereinafter the same shall apply], and the former Rules on the Remuneration of Public Officials separately stipulate the period of regular promotion, the restriction on promotion of salary, the special case for the promotion period, and special promotion of salary. Accordingly, the above provisions on the Personnel Management Regulations of this case cannot be deemed to apply to the Plaintiffs as they are.

③ Since the Plaintiffs were employed as a fixed-term worker from before 197 to 1997 and renewed their employment contracts each year, it is difficult to deem that the instant personnel management regulations enacted in 197 set up the Plaintiffs’ wage system on the premise of a fixed-term salary system with a single-year salary grade.

④ Although most of the school accounting personnel, including the Plaintiffs, did not raise a salary class for a considerable period of time after employment, they did not seem to have raised any objection at the time, and the Plaintiffs also prepared an employment contract with the content that limits the elevation of salary class around 2007. These circumstances support the Defendant’s assertion that even after the instant personnel management regulations were enacted, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant did not consider the Plaintiffs’ wage system as a regular salary class system every year.

⑤ The Plaintiffs’ salary grade system assumes that the salary grade should be elevated regularly every year from the time of employment as of the time of employment. There is no provision that the time of applying the salary grade system retroactive to the time of employment, including the instant personnel management regulations, the basic guidelines for formulating the budget of school accounting, and the personnel management regulations for accounting personnel.

6. In full view of the above circumstances, the instant personnel management regulation provides that the remuneration standard for the employees of the school accounting, such as the Plaintiffs, shall be paid according to class 10 public officials in technical service, and it cannot be deemed that the instant salary management regulation applied to the Plaintiffs on a yearly basis.

C. Nevertheless, solely based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court concluded that the salary grade system that regularly enhances the Plaintiffs on a one-year basis applies to the Plaintiffs. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the Personnel Management Regulations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)