[Judgment of the court below]

Public Official Pension Corporation

November 19, 2008

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2007Guhap4856 Decided June 24, 2008

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke on November 7, 2007 the disposition not to add up the period of service against the plaintiff on November 7, 2007.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this Court’s judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the following: (b) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (c) Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

C. Determination

(1) Article 11(3) of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 5717 of Jan. 29, 199); Article 5-2(2) of the former Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17470 of Dec. 31, 2001) provides that an assistant professor working for a national or public university shall be appointed for a specified period of not more than four years; thus, the provision differs from that of a professor whose retirement age is guaranteed in principle, the provision aims to supplement the termination of the retirement age system by re-verification of qualification and ability as a teacher at the expiration of the term of appointment. In light of the fact that the current Public Educational Officials Act maintains the current system for the appointment of university faculty members, barring any special circumstance, the assistant professor of a national or public university for a specified period of time is terminated as a university faculty member upon expiration of the term of appointment (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da52647 of Mar. 9, 206).

On the other hand, when a retired public official is reappointed as a public official after being appointed as a public official under the Public Officials Pension Act, the former tenure of office shall be added to the current tenure of office at his/her request (Article 23(2) of the Public Officials Pension Act), and the term of office of a public official shall be calculated by the number of months from the month in which the date of appointment as a public official falls to the month in which the day before his/her retirement or the date of his/her death falls

With respect to this case, the Plaintiff was appointed as a fixed-term assistant professor on September 1, 1994 and then lost the status as a university faculty member on August 31, 1998 due to the refusal of reappointment on August 31, 1998. However, the fact that the Plaintiff acquired the status as a university faculty member by being reappointed on March 3, 2005 after being awarded a favorable judgment in the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the said refusal of reappointment. As seen earlier, even though the Plaintiff was found to have been aware of the status as the university faculty member after the expiration of the term of appointment, it cannot be included in the term of office under Article 23(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act.

(2) In addition, Article 24(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that "a person who intends to be added to the tenure of office shall submit an application for aggregation to the Corporation within two years from the date of appointment as a public official through the head of the agency to which he belongs," and Article 17(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that "a person who intends to be added to the tenure of office under Article 24(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act shall submit an application for aggregation of the tenure of office to the head of the agency to which

However, the plaintiff filed the application in this case with the president of ○ University on November 5, 2007, which was later later than two years since March 3, 2005, which was re-appointed. Thus, it cannot be deemed a legitimate application for adding up the period of service, and there is no ground to regard the initial date of adding up the period of service as March 15, 2007, which is the date of re-determination of salary class of the plaintiff, as alleged by the plaintiff.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff continuously demanded the president of ○ University to recognize the period of de-election as the tenure of office since his reappointment on March 3, 2005, unless the Plaintiff submits an application for aggregation of the tenure of office in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Public Officials Pension Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act, such application may not be deemed a legitimate application for aggregation

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful, and the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is not acceptable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Byung-hee (Presiding Judge)