1. On November 29, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition dismissing the appointment of a public official in technical service who was assigned to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 1, 2007, the Plaintiff is newly appointed to Gyeonggi-do as a public official in the occupational category of class 10 of technical skills and is currently employed by the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education.

B. On October 17, 2013, the Defendant established and implemented a plan to determine the successful applicants in the order of the senior public official in the technical service, such as: (i) the high-level evaluation of the job ability; (ii) the high-level evaluation of the job ability; (iii) a person whose service period is high (which does not include the period of temporary retirement; (iv) and (v) a person whose service period is high (which does not include the period of temporary retirement; and (v) a person who will decide the successful applicants in the order of the senior public official.

C. On November 9, 2013, the Plaintiff was given a full score in the evaluation of performance of duties performed on November 9, 2013, but more than 12 persons who acquired the full score exceeded the prospective number of persons to be selected, the Defendant decided the successful candidates according to the order of service years among the full scorers.

From July 1, 2007, which was the first appointment date, to October 17, 2013, the career calculation basis date of the Plaintiff, 6 years and 17 days from the 17th day of the 2013th day of the 201st day of the 7th day of the 7th day of the 7th day of the 7th day. However, the Defendant announced the results of the selection of the Plaintiff excluded on November 29, 201, by excluding the period from June 15, 2008 to April 30, the 16th day of the 196th day of the 1st day of the 1st five years and 4th day of the 4th day of the 11st day of the 11st day of the 2013rd day of the 11st day of the 2013.

(hereinafter “instant failure disposition”). 【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 36(2) of the Plaintiff’s Constitution provides that “The State shall endeavor to protect motherhood” and Article 63(4) of the Local Public Officials Act is disadvantageous to the person with authority for appointment on grounds of childcare leave.