Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Yang Sung-soo, Counsel for the two-way

Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

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

The defendant's 2018-year reduction disposition against the plaintiff on September 8, 2017 also revoked 5% reduction disposition of the total admission quota.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this case is as follows, except for the following parts and the part which the plaintiff and the defendant are emphasized at the trial of the court of the first instance or additionally claimed matters, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main

[Supplementary Use]

○○ 3 pages 8 of the first instance judgment, '43 persons' are '43 cases'.

○○, the third and nine sides of the judgment of the first instance, is the "private university" as the "private university."

○○ The 3rd of the judgment of the first instance court, 15 '15 '17', respectively.

○ With respect to 4 pages 17 and 18 of the first instance judgment, the following 8 weeks are added.

8) Although the Seoul Administrative Court’s order 2016Guhap62320 Decided September 29, 2017, Paragraph 1 of the judgment is written as “an annual 9 disposition”, it is clear that it is a clerical error of “an annual 22 disposition” in light of each content of Disposition No. 9, No. 22 in the Disposition No. 1 Audit and Inspection Report No. 3 and No. 1 Audit and Inspection Report No. 9,222.

○ 5th judgment of the first instance court, 15th judgment, "the appeal was dismissed and finalized as it is," and the defendant appealed (Supreme Court Decision 2018Du49635), but the appeal was dismissed, and the above appellate judgment became final and conclusive as it is."

The 'P 211 square meters and Q 126 meters' are 211 square meters and Q 126 meters from the 9th judgment of the first instance court. The 'P 211 square meters and Q 126 meters.'

○○ The 11th judgment of the first instance court, 18th judgment, '2016 March, 2016', is changed to '3rd judgment of March, 2017'.

【Supplementary Decision】

A. The defendant's argument

1) With respect to the part concerning the status of an employee among the measures of status, the pertinent provision was legally established in accordance with the delegation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 5 of the Higher Education Act and Article 48 of the Private School Act. Article 19 of the instant provision provides a clear ground for requesting the actions to status of an employee belonging to an agency subject to audit, and Article 19 of the instant provision provides that if the Defendant construed that only a private school teacher may demand a resolution of disciplinary action, it would not only contravene the language and text of the instant provision, but also be inconsistent with the purport of the Constitution that provides for the legal principle of status of a teacher and the systematic interpretation of education-related Acts and subordinate statutes that guarantee the status of a teacher. In light of the fact that

2) When calculating the administrative sanctions again according to the conclusion that the part concerning the employee's status is justifiable, the cumulative additional rate 20% of the result of the application of the cumulative additional rate 193.2.1) leads to a total of 10% of the disposition standards. The disposition of this case should not be viewed as a deviation or abuse of discretion unless there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the defendant's disposition in accordance with the guidelines of this case is remarkably unfair. In light of the purport that the disposition of this case requires the plaintiff to recover financial soundness and guarantee the student's right of education, it cannot be deemed that the public interest to be achieved is less than the disadvantage that the student is enrolled or enrolled in the university of this case, and since the university of this case is planned to reduce the fixed number of admission by 10%, it cannot be deemed that there is a serious disadvantage to the plaintiff even if the reduction of the fixed number of admission is made again according to the disposition of this case, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case violates the principle of proportionality or abuse of discretion.

B. Determination

1) Whether there are grounds for action concerning part of the measure against the general staff in relation to his status

A) Article 5 of the Higher Education Act and Article 48 of the Private School Act provide for matters necessary for the Minister of Education to conduct an audit on the affairs under their jurisdiction. Article 48 of the Private School Act, which is the basis thereof, provides that "competent authorities may order school foundations or private school support organizations to submit reports, inspect books and documents, etc., and order them to take necessary measures." Article 60 (1) of the Higher Education Act provides that "The Minister of Education may order the founders, managers, or heads of schools to take corrective measures or changes within a specified period if schools violate education-related Acts and subordinate statutes or orders or school regulations related thereto with respect to facilities, equipment, classes, school affairs, and other matters." Meanwhile, Article 19 (2) 2 of the same Act provides that "If public officials, executive officers, or employees of agencies subject to audit or inspection have committed any act falling under disciplinary action or reprimand prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes or relevant regulations, the Minister of Education may request the head of the relevant agency subject to audit or inspection to take disciplinary measures or reprimand them."

B) However, the Private School Act aims to ensure the sound development of private schools by securing the independence and promoting the public nature of private schools (Article 1). Article 16(1) provides that the board of directors composed of directors shall make important decisions of the school juristic person (Article 20). Article 20 provides that the board of directors shall become the inherent authority of the board of directors (Article 19(1)); Article 19(1) provides that the board of directors shall represent the school juristic person and perform duties prescribed in the Private School Act and the articles of incorporation and shall exercise overall control over other school juristic persons’ internal affairs (Article 20-2); Article 20(2) provides that the Private School Act recognizes the competent authorities such as cancellation of approval for taking office (Article 20-3), suspension of the performance of duties of executives (Article 25), appointment of temporary directors (Article 25). However, the strict purpose of setting the requirements is to protect the status of executives as an autonomous and autonomous operation of the school juristic person. Meanwhile, while the Private School Act provides for the status of the school juristic person, autonomy and remuneration.

C) In addition, Article 48 of the Private School Act provides that "necessary measures may be taken by the competent agency in accordance with the results of submission of reports to school juristic persons, inspection of books and documents, etc." However, it cannot be interpreted that such competent agency's authority may take any measure according to the judgment of the competent agency based on the results of submission of reports, inspection of books and documents, etc. In particular, in cases where the contents of such measures include disadvantageous measures against executive officers and employees of school juristic persons, it shall be deemed that the above provisions and purport of the Private School Act include the purport of promoting the public nature of school juristic persons and restricting the exercise of authority by the competent agency in order to protect not only school juristic persons' autonomy but also their executive officers and employees.

(d) In Article 54 (3) of the Private School Act, the competent authorities may request the person who has the authority to appoint the relevant teacher to dismiss or take disciplinary action when the teacher of the relevant private school falls under the grounds for dismissal or disciplinary action as provided in this Act. In this case, the person who has the authority to appoint the relevant teacher requested to dismiss or take disciplinary action shall comply with such request unless there exist any special reasons." Article 54-2 of the Private School Act provides that "Where the head of each school violates the authority of the relevant school concerning admission, classes and graduation, which falls under the jurisdiction of the head of the relevant school in accordance with this Act or any order issued under this Act or other education-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and where the head of each school violates this Act or any order issued under this Act or other education-related Acts and subordinate statutes, he/she may request the person who has the authority to dismiss the head of the relevant school. In such cases, the person who has the authority to appoint who has been requested to dismiss or take disciplinary action shall comply therewith unless there exist any special reasons."

E) In addition, Article 5 of the Higher Education Act is subject to guidance and supervision by the Minister of Education. ‘‘(1). The Minister of Education may require the head of a school to submit relevant materials, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if necessary to guide and supervise the school. (2) Since it is merely granting the Defendant the general authority to guide and supervise the school including private schools, it is difficult to view that the above provision does not lead to the Defendant’s authority to request disciplinary action against general employees of private schools.

F) Ultimately, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s failure to take a social position measure against six employees (H, I, J, K, L, and M) among the non-performance of the instant disposition cannot be a legitimate ground for the instant disposition, and therefore, the Defendant’s allegation in this part is without merit.

2) Whether the instant disposition deviates from or abused discretionary power

A) First of all, the Defendant’s assertion that the administrative sanctions against the Plaintiff totaled 193.2 points on the premise that the part on six employees in relation to his status is justifiable is without merit.

B) In light of the form, content, etc. of the instant guidelines, the administrative agency’s internal rules on the criteria for exercise of discretionary power are deemed to be the administrative agency’s internal rules on the criteria for exercise of discretionary power. Unless it is deemed that the criteria are objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the administrative agency’s intent should be respected as far as possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1525, Jun. 26, 2014). Such rules on discretion generally take effect only within the administrative organization and have the effect externally, and there is no external binding effect on citizens or courts, and whether the pertinent disposition is lawful ought to be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, as well as the above guidelines. Therefore, even if the disposition is not immediately deemed lawful, unless there is a reasonable ground to believe that the criteria are inconsistent with the Constitution or laws, or that the outcome of the application of the said standards is considerably unreasonable in light of the content of violations and the purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, which are the grounds for disposition, it should not be determined that the disposition should have abused discretion (see, etc.

C) The instant disposition conforms to the criteria for disposition to determine the level of administrative sanctions on the basis of the aggregate amount after calculating the points for each non-performance item and applying cumulative premium rates according to the instant guidelines, and there is no data to deem that the criteria for disposition itself does not conform with the Constitution or laws.

However, in the circumstances described in Article 4-3(2) of the first instance judgment, the first instance court’s conclusion that the Defendant’s instant disposition against the Plaintiff, which is the largest of the disposition stipulated in Article 60 of the Higher Education Act, violates the principle of proportionality, and is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion, on the ground that it is reasonable to conclude that the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case, which is the largest of the disposition stipulated in Article 60 of the Higher Education Act, is in violation of the principle of proportionality, and is in violation of the principle of proportionality, and is in violation of the discretionary authority.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Dokwon Line

Judges Sung-ju

A person shall be appointed.