beta
Text
1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 1, 2011, the Defendant appointed the Plaintiff as a public official of Grade 10 in technical service, and the Plaintiff’s beginning salary grade was defined as 8, including the Plaintiff’s military career.
B. On May 1, 2012, the Plaintiff’s salary class was elevated to Grade 10 and Grade 9 in technical service, and around May 23, 2012, the Plaintiff was promoted to Grade 9 in technical service as a public official of Grade 9 in technical service, and was elevated to Grade 9 in technical service on May 1, 2013.
C. On December 12, 2013, pursuant to Article 4(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 11531, Dec. 11, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”) (amended by Act No. 11531, Dec. 12, 2013; hereinafter “former Act”), the occupational category of a public official of class 9 in general service was converted from a public official of class 9 in general service. On the same day, the Defendant defined the Plaintiff’s salary class as class 9 in general service pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the former Regulations on Remuneration.
(A) The disposition by the Defendant defining the Plaintiff’s salary class (hereinafter referred to as “instant salary class determination disposition”) D.
After July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff’s salary class was promoted to a public official of class 8 in general service, and became a class 9 in general service. On May 1, 2015, the Plaintiff’s salary class was elevated to class 8 in general service class 10 in general service.
E. On August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for an aggregate of career experience to re-determine the Plaintiff’s salary class with the purport that “the Defendant was newly appointed the Plaintiff on December 12, 2013 and should have been defined by applying Article 8(1) and (2) and attached Table 1 of the former Remuneration Regulations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for an aggregate of career experience to re-determine the Plaintiff’s salary class. However, on August 29, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s above application (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
(a) the primary claim (1) the local public officials of the Gu.