1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this part in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant's promotion examination on November 24, 2007 for Grade III promotion is "the promotion examination for Grade III promotion", "the promotional rank for Grade III promotion" on December 28, 2007, "the promotional rank for Grade IV" on December 28, 2009, "the promotional rank for Grade IV" on December 28, 2009, and "the promotional rank for Grade V" and "the promotional rank for Grade VI employees for Grade VI employees under the defendant's control" on November 24, 2007, and thus, the examination constitutes the promotion examination.

On December 14, 2007, the appointment order of class 5 of class 5 of class 5 is 'the promotional personnel appointment order'.

Whether the cancellation of a promotional personnel order against the above plaintiffs A, C, and D's request is invalid or not, the above plaintiffs are all admitted to their misconducts. If so, the promotional personnel order against the above plaintiffs 3, 5 is made based on the examination results applied by the above plaintiffs in an unlawful manner, such as receiving prior examination questions and answers, and it is reasonable to deem that the above plaintiffs were selected as promotional candidates, and that the above plaintiffs were invalid due to significant defects in the selection process.

In addition, Article 22 (1) of the Personnel Regulations of the defendant provides for the minimum continuous service period required for promotion to each class, and in the case of class 5, the minimum continuous service period required for promotion to class 5 is at least 2 years. In the case of class 5, the assignment of class 4 promotion to Plaintiff D is based on the premise that Plaintiff D is effectively promoted to class 5 and satisfies the minimum continuous service period required for promotion to class 4, and the assignment of class 5 promotion to Plaintiff D is null and void.

Therefore, since the above promotional personnel order against the above plaintiffs is null and void, the defendant's revocation of the above promotional personnel order is justifiable.

Accordingly, the above plaintiffs are promoted.