(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.17. 선고 2017누48477 판결

4. The plaintiffs C, D, B, and the defendant bear the total costs of the lawsuit, and the costs of appeal incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant except the above plaintiffs shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiffs on March 14, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Reasons

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 plan” applied by Plaintiff B on May 8, 2006 is as shown in attached Form 2. ② The guidance on receipt of applications for a competitive recruitment examination for career-based public officials in technical service, the “A office career screening document screening (examination) plan,” and the “career-based competitive recruitment examination plan for public officials in technical service” are as listed in attached Form 3. ③ The remaining plaintiffs except Plaintiff B, C, and D (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff E, etc.”) applied on November 4, 2014 are as shown in attached Table 4.

C. Plaintiff B was employed respectively on July 3, 2006, Plaintiff C, and D on December 12, 2013, Plaintiff E, respectively.

D. On January 29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an application for correction of salary grade as stated in attached Table 5. The plaintiffs asserted that "the civilian career was not included in salary grade or 100% career was not reflected in salary grade" with respect to the defendant on January 29, 2016. However, on March 14, 2016, the defendant rejected the application for correction of salary grade as stated in "the contents of the application for correction of salary grade" as stated in attached Table 5. However, the defendant's application for correction of salary grade was not recognized as the same field (10%) with respect to the transfer of the new physical career by employment in accordance with Article 28 (2) 6 of the State Public Officials Act. Thus, the defendant's application for the correction of salary grade was recognized as similar to that of the state and local government police assigned for special guard of non-Dong, recognition of work experience in the police assigned for special guard of public institution, and recognition in the case of civil service experience."

E. On April 12, 2016, the Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition review with the Ministry of Personnel Management (Ministry of Personnel Management). However, the appeals review committee dismissed the petition on July 7, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 through 7 (including each number, and the same applies hereinafter) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached 7. The entry in the relevant statutes are as follows.

3. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the plaintiffs' private work experience or the work experience in the State, local governments, and public institutions is "a certificate of qualification prescribed by the work guidelines such as public officials' remuneration, a work experience in a private sector for each occupation, such as Article 28 (2) 3 of the State Public Officials Act, or a work experience recognized as a related job field in a competitive recruitment examination, etc. that requires the work experience in the State, local governments, and public institutions, or corresponding work experience, the plaintiffs' work experience should be recognized and converted into 100% as "a similar work experience in the same field" and reflected in the determination of the salary class. Therefore, it should be revoked because the defendant did not recognize the plaintiffs' private work experience in relation to the determination of the salary class or recognized only part of work experience in the State, local governments, and public institutions as illegal.

B. Defendant’s assertion

In the competitive recruitment examination in 2006, 2013, and 2014, which the Defendant implemented, the Plaintiffs did not set the Plaintiffs’ private work experience or the work experience of the State, local governments, and public institutions as the direct eligibility for taking the examination or the requirement for taking the examination. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ work experience does not constitute “the work experience recognized as the relevant work field” in the competitive recruitment examination that requires the private work experience by occupation or the work experience of the State, local governments, public institutions.

In addition, in order to constitute a "career corresponding thereto", the actual examination of the plaintiffs' career experience was conducted at the time of the competitive recruitment examination, and the contents and duration thereof should have had a significant impact on the appointment of the plaintiffs. In the case of plaintiffs B, C, and D, appointed in 2006, and 2013, there was no substantial examination of their private work experience, and in the case of plaintiffs E, etc. appointed in 2014, their private work experience or work experience in the state and public institutions was limited to the preferential requirements in the document screening stage, and since there was no substantial examination of them at the interview stage, it did not affect the decision of the final successful candidate. Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' work experience does not constitute "a corresponding career."

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Relevant statutes

Article 4 (1) of the State Public Officials Act and Article 3 (1) [Attachment Table 1] of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials shall apply to public officials in general service. Article 47 (1) 1 of the State Public Officials Act provides that matters concerning the salary, salary grade, and raise in the salary of public officials shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 8 (2) of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations provides that "the beginning salary grade of public officials shall be defined in [Attachment Table 15]." Article 10 of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations provides that where public officials have experience experience within the definition of their salary grade pursuant to Article 8 (2), public agencies, corporations, organizations, private enterprises, etc. related to the relevant career may inquire of the relevant public officials within the scope of 0% of career experience experience experience in the same field (in cases of public officials in general service, the Minister of Personnel Management shall determine the rate of experience experience in the same field as those of public officials in general service within the scope of 10% of the same career experience experience experience in the same field, such as those of public officials in general service [Attachment 16].

Meanwhile, Article 10(2) and attached Table 16 of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations (amended by the Ministry of Personnel Management Rule No. 27, Jul. 4, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the "Guideline") [Attachment 1] provides that "a career experience recognized as a career conversion rate for each private sector as a similar career (professional career), which can be recognized as a "career experience for each private sector" as a "career experience in the same field as that for the expected class and class of position for appointment" and "a full-time career in the same field as that for appointment." In this case, "the same field" is defined as "a qualification, license, doctor's degree (hereinafter referred to as "qualification, etc.") after acquiring a qualification certificate, license, doctor's degree, or career in the same specialized field (hereinafter referred to as "type 1") or a career without qualification certificate, etc., which is recognized as an "career experience in the same field corresponding to that for each private sector, such as Article 28(2)3 of the State Public Officials Act" (hereinafter referred to as "the same type of career in this case").

[Attachment 1] The criteria for recognition of ‘the same field of experience of private sector, which is similar (professional and special experience) experience, are applied to the judgment of ‘the same field of experience of registered police officer' and ‘the same field of experience of public agency, which is similar (professional and special experience),' and according to the guidelines [Attachment 5], the Bank of Korea is a public corporation based on individual laws and recognized by the Minister of Personnel Management.

B. As to the existence of external binding force of the instant guidelines, and the grounds for the partial judgment on the interpretation and application of the instant guidelines are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

C. Whether the plaintiffs' private work experience or work experience in the state, local government, or public institution constitutes the work experience subject to recognition under the guidelines of this case

1) The reason for a partial judgment is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 7 through 13, 10, 100) is the same.

2) Whether it constitutes “the corresponding career”

A) Criteria for determination

In this case’s guidelines [Attachment 1] “the corresponding career” refers to a case in which, even though the private service experience itself was not an appointment requirement in each occupation under Article 28(2) of the State Public Officials Act, it can be evaluated as equivalent to the type 2, such as where the recognition of the private service experience is affected by the result of a substantial examination of the private service experience in the appointment process. Whether it falls under the case is determined individually and specifically by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the contents of the private service experience in question, the degree of relevance with the private service experience in question, the appointment requirement and the proportion of the private service experience in the relevant public official in the appointment process. Furthermore, the above interpretation and determination criteria are also applied to determining whether the “the same field of service experience and service experience in the State, local government, etc.” in the police assigned for special guard and public institution, etc.

B) In the case of Plaintiff B, according to the Plaintiff B, who applied for the employment examination in 2006, the document screening criteria at the time were examined in writing as to whether the applicant’s qualifications, career, etc. related to the pertinent duties meet the prescribed criteria and judged eligibility. The interview screening criteria at the time included “professional knowledge and its ability” in the five evaluation elements, but included “documents screening sheet” in the five evaluation elements, and included “career certificate and qualification certificate as one of the documents to be submitted,” and “career certificate and qualification certificate as one of the documents to be submitted.” However, it is acknowledged that there were partitionss in the process of determining eligibility based on comprehensive consideration of the examination elements including “career certificate” and “career certificate” and “career certificate as one of the documents to be submitted. However, in light of the above circumstances, it is not recognized as having a different effect on Plaintiff B’s employment examination as a whole during the 20-year examination process.

① According to the plan for special employment of public officials in 2006, five persons were to be recruited in 2006. At the time, the Defendant offered preferential employment to persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the recommendation of the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs on a daily basis, but the Defendant offered special employment by Internet recruitment notice in cases where persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State are below or below the eligible persons of distinguished services to the State. In addition, in 2006, the eligibility for the above plan for special employment was stated as “less there is any academic background or career: no restriction.” In the case of the employment examination in 2006, support was available even without the work experience in the relevant field. As such, it is difficult to deem that the private work experience in the relevant field was premised on or

② In 206, there was no restriction on academic background and career, and it was included in the examination elements of the document screening list. However, in the case of an employment examination in 2006, the number of applicants for the examination passed the document screening form by 17 persons who received the examination. In other words, in light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the examination of the qualification, career, etc. of applicants related to the performance of the relevant duties in the document screening standard to mean the qualification of applicants required by the document screening rather than the examination of the applicant’s career, academic career, etc., which is the qualification of applicants required by the document screening form, namely, whether they are disqualified under Article 33 of the State Public Officials Act, age of application, whether they are obliged to perform the duty of military service, physical conditions for the performance of the duty of military service, etc.

(3) In the interview, the interview test is to examine the ability and eligibility necessary for performing the duties, and there are the elements of ‘professional knowledge and its ability to perform' in the five evaluation elements, but it is difficult to see that the interview includes the ability and eligibility necessary for performing the duties, ‘professional knowledge and its ability to perform', and it is difficult to see that the successful applicant is determined by considering the following as a whole: ‘mental self-sufficiency as a public official', ‘a precise accuracy and logic of the interview', ‘for example, ‘psy, character and good faith', ‘original ability and possibility of development', etc.

C) In the case of Plaintiff C and D, according to the respective statements in the Plaintiff C and D’s written evidence Nos. 4 and 6 related to the Plaintiff C and D applied for the employment examination in 2013, there exists a “career certificate” among the documents submitted by Plaintiff C and D as a “competitive recruitment examination for career,” and in the document screening, the applicant’s qualification, career, etc. are examined in writing as to whether the applicant’s qualification, etc. meet the prescribed criteria, and in the interview, the examination requires the “examination of the ability, qualification, etc. necessary to perform the pertinent duties.” However, in light of the above evidence and the overall purport of oral arguments, it is insufficient to recognize that the above facts alone are sufficient to have a substantial examination of the Plaintiff C and D’s private service career to the extent that it affects the appointment during the employment examination process in 2013, and there is no other evidence to recognize this otherwise.

① In the public notice of the employment examination in 2013, there is no explicit indication of “work experience in the field related to protection and guard” due to qualifications for application and preferential treatment, so support could have been granted even without work experience in the relevant field. Moreover, there is no discovery of the fact that there is work experience in the document screening and interview depending on whether there is a work experience in the relevant field.

(2) In the form of document screening for employment examination in 2013, examining whether applicants' qualifications, career, etc. meet the prescribed criteria shall be based on whether they are disqualified under Article 33 of the State Public Officials Act, which is the qualifications required by the public notice of employment, the limitation on retirement age, whether they fall under the provisions of Articles 4 and 5 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (Person Eligible for Support for Memorial Business), application age, nationality of the Republic of

It seems that it is necessary to examine the qualification certificate, computer-related qualification certificate, etc. In fact, as seen in the current status (25) of applicants for the public official in technical service (25) who is a reference material for the examination plan for document screening, the defendant focused on the date of birth of applicants for the examination, relationship with persons of distinguished service to the State, related qualification certificate, and whether applicants for the examination are eligible for employment assistance in relation to the examination of document screening list for other reference materials, it is necessary to judge whether applicants are eligible for employment assistance, whether they are eligible for application age, whether they are eligible for military service completion or exemption, whether they are eligible for employment assistance, whether they are eligible for employment assistance, and what is the examination of private service experience in the related field.

(3) In the interview, the interview test is to examine the ability and eligibility necessary for performing the duties, and there are the elements of ‘professional knowledge and its application ability' in the five evaluation elements, but it is difficult to see that the interview includes the ability and eligibility necessary for performing the duties, ‘professional knowledge and its application ability' without fail to be included in the private sector work experience in the related field. In the grading, it seems that the successful bidder is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: ‘mental self-sufficiency as a public official', ‘a accuracy and logicality of the expression', ‘equitable behavior and good faith', ‘original ability and possibility of development', etc.

D) In the case of Plaintiff E, etc., the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the following circumstances, including Plaintiff E, etc., Plaintiff E, etc., who applied for the employment examination in 2014, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 2-2, and evidence No. 7, and the purport of the whole oral argument, i.e., “persons with career experience in the field of protection and security: career experience in the field of full-time service: necessity of proof of career experience for full-time service: career experience experience in the field of document screening: ② According to the document screening plan, the document screening type at the time is required to evaluate the successful applicant’s qualifications, career experience, etc. based on documents, such as the document screening, self-introduction, etc., based on which the applicant’s career experience in the field of document screening is included, and the Plaintiffs’ experience experience in the field of document screening or related field of document No. 2 is deemed to have the highest influence on the applicant’s final number of applicants’ experience in the employment examination for 15 years and 3 years.

3) Sub-decisions

A) Since Plaintiff B, C, and D’s private work experience does not constitute “a career recognized as a related job field (type 2)” and “a career corresponding thereto in a competitive recruitment examination that requires private work experience for each type of occupation prescribed in the instant guidelines, it is legitimate to refuse the correction of each class against the above Plaintiffs, who did not reflect their work experience in the determination of salary class pursuant to Article 8(2) [Attachment 15] of the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations.

B) Although the Plaintiff E’s private work experience or the work experience in the State, local governments, and public agencies does not fall under the category No. 2 under the instant guidelines, it constitutes “the corresponding work experience”. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ work experience should be reflected in the determination of salary class by recognizing and converting 100% of the similar work experience in the same field as “the similar work experience in the same field” prescribed in the Rules on the Rules on the Remuneration of Public Officials, and should be reflected in the determination of salary class. Therefore, the Defendant’s refusal of correction of salary class for the Plaintiff E, etc., which was recognized only as part of the work experience in the State, local governments, and public agencies, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs C, D, and B's claims are dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims except the above plaintiffs are accepted with merit. Since the part concerning plaintiffs C, D, and B in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion with different conclusions, the above plaintiffs' appeals against the above plaintiffs are accepted and the above plaintiffs' claims are all dismissed. The appeal against the plaintiffs except the above plaintiffs is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.