1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that "the defendant has the obligation to correct the plaintiff's class 2018 from 2008 to K (the first class) from the bottom of the fourth judgment of the court of first instance." "The defendant has the obligation to correct the plaintiff's class 2019 to L(the second class from 2008 to 12th class)." The defendant has the obligation to correct the plaintiff's class 2019 to L(the plaintiff's class from 2008 to 12th class). The plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance is the same as the statement of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the plaintiff's additional determination as to the contents asserted in the court of first instance as set forth in the following

On April 25, 2008, the Plaintiff violated the principle of equality of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the argument of the trial of the trial, and continued to provide labor to the Defendant on April 25, 2008, while working at an institution affiliated with the Defendant, the Plaintiff was subject to a lower wage calculation rating compared with other public officials whose type of occupation was changed, as the previous career was not recognized after the change of occupation to the driver.

This violates the principle of equality as an unreasonable discrimination.

In violation of the principle of trust protection, the defendant did not recognize the existing career for the plaintiff, although the defendant recognized the existing work experience for the workers in other public service whose occupational categories are converted or changed.

This is against the principle of protection of constitutional trust because it is against the trust of the defendant, even though the defendant granted the plaintiff the trust that he will recognize and take the existing career at the time of new employment without reasonable grounds.

Judgment

With respect to the assertion that the principle of equality is contrary to the principle of equality, the principle of equality stipulated in Article 11(1) of the Constitution does not mean absolute equality that denies all discriminatory treatments, but rather means relative and substantial equality that should not be unreasonable discrimination, so that there is discrimination without reasonable grounds.