1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The relevant part of the judgment of the first instance in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted with respect to the details of the disposition

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The provisions of Articles 43-2 and 10-4 of the Public Educational Officials Act, which serve as the basis for issuing a personnel assignment against the Plaintiff, applies only to the public educational officials first appointed after January 26, 2012, but it is invalid to issue a personnel assignment order on his/her former part, applying the above provision to the Plaintiff already appointed.

Shebly, even if the issuance of personnel ipso facto retirement is merely a notification of concept and does not constitute a disposition subject to appeal litigation, it constitutes a new administrative disposition to which the Defendant issued a personnel order that he/she be subject to the Plaintiff’s ipso facto retirement based on the decision of the

However, in order to dispute the validity of the instant dismissal disposition, the appeal review committee rejected the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request constitutes a reason for ipso facto retirement more severe than the dismissal disposition, and the Defendant’s issuing a personnel order on the Plaintiff’s ipso facto retirement according to the reasons for the decision of the appeals review committee is unlawful against the principle of reason for dismissal or the principle of prohibition

Therefore, since the issuance of personnel affairs against the plaintiff is null and void, the plaintiff should be deemed to have returned to the status before his/her ipso facto retirement, that is, the status of the dismissed public educational official.

B. The Defendant’s assignment of personnel of the instant security defense is merely a notification of the concept of informing the Defendant that he/she was retired due to the reason for retirement stipulated by law, and is not a disposition that is subject to appeal.

C. According to the judgment of the Public Educational Officials Act, it does not require a separate administrative disposition to terminate a public official relationship, as a matter of law, when a reason for disqualification exists.