2.B

2. The amendment of the school regulations of the Korea University on March 30, 2012 by the Defendant is unlawful.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Plaintiff A is a professor of C University (hereinafter referred to as “C University”) a field of forest management, who was registered as a candidate for the election of the 10th president of C&A. Plaintiff B is a professor of C&A’s E Campus E-U.S. Language Text, who was a member of the E Campus Association prior to the amendment of the school regulations of C&A on April 25, 2012.

B. On November 21, 2005 and November 22, 2005, C University drafted a “CF University’s MOU’s MOU’s MOU’s MOU’s MOU’s MOU’s MOU’s decentralization.” The main contents are as follows: (a) contribute to the development of regional industries by promoting differentiated specialization by campus; (b) integrating national universities within C region as of March 1, 2006 in order to promote the establishment of the 1Do 1 national university system; (c) the name of the integrated university is C University; and (d) the name of the integrated university is C University is operated by D campus and E Campus through a 2 campus.

C. Article 24(3)2 of the former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the “former Public Educational Officials Act”). However, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the “Ministry of Education”) designated a national university, which was assessed as the lower 15% of the national university’s structural reform, as the first national department of structural reform, in order to enhance the competitiveness of the national university and to promote its own structural reform, and in this case, C University was designated as one of its main national department of structural reform.

D. Accordingly, on December 9, 201, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology and Cuniversity prepared a 'Written Understanding for the Promotion of Structural Reform Plan' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Written Understanding of this case'). The main contents are as follows: ① “Cuniversity shall abolish the current presidential election system, introduce a new election method which is not a future one, but a new election method; (1) prepare the basis and detailed plan for the implementation of the current presidential election system; (2) promote the specialization of universities connected to local industries for the development of each campaignus; and (3) establish an integrated system of administration and finance for the efficient operation as an integrated school.”

E. On November 29, 2011, C University held voting by faculty members on the abolition of the presidential election system. Accordingly, on March 8, 2012, the Defendant proposed and announced a partial amendment of the school regulations (hereinafter referred to as “the first amendment of the school regulations”) and a proposal for the enactment of the regulations on the selection of candidates for president (hereinafter referred to as “ Various regulations”).

F. On March 15, 2012, the Policy Deliberative Committee deliberated on and passed the proposed amendment of school regulations and various regulations, and the Regulations Deliberative Committee passed the amendment on March 16, 2012 as a result of its deliberation on the proposed amendment, and the major contents of the amendment are as follows (hereinafter referred to as “the first amendment of school regulations”).

A person shall be appointed.

G. On March 19, 2012, the Defendant requested the Campus Committee to deliberate on the draft amendment of the school regulations and various regulations. At the D Campus Committee, the first amendment of the school regulations was passed in its entirety, but it was rejected at the E Campus Committee. Accordingly, on March 23, 2012, the Defendant requested a review on the draft amendment of the school regulations (hereinafter referred to as “second amendment of the school regulations”), which reflects some of the comments on the amendment of the E Campus Committee on the draft amendment, made a request for review on the draft amendment to the E Campus Committee on March 23, 2012, but the draft amendment did not reflect all the existing amendments on March 26, 2012. Meanwhile, the E Campus Committee did not introduce the first amendment of the school regulations, which was the president’s objection to the amendment of the school regulations.

H. Meanwhile, on March 27, 2012, C. 182, the first faculty member of C.C. deliberated on the draft amendment of the school regulations and various regulations, and the decision was made through a video conference on March 30, 2012, to withhold the determination of the second amendment of the school regulations and to deliberate on the draft amendment of the school regulations. However, on March 30, 2012, the second amendment was not held as a quorum, and the second amendment was not held.

I. On March 30, 2012, the Defendant: (a) abolished the president’s assignment system among the amendments to the school regulations on March 30, 2012; and (b) amended and promulgated Article 12(3) of C University Rule No. 1300 (hereinafter referred to as “the amendment of school regulations as of March 30, 2012”) by separating the newly incorporated parts of Article 12(3), which introduced the president recruitment system from among the amendments to the school regulations on March 30, 2012, in order to prevent subsequent issues, such as the reduction of the number of students enrolled in the instant case, budget reduction, etc.

E. Since then on April 10, 2012, the C University’s first 183 Teaching Council: (a) an emergency amendment was made to extend the maintenance period of a legal college from February 2012 to February 2017, which is stipulated in Article 2(3) of the Addenda (Rules 1047, Feb. 27, 2009) with respect to the second amendment of the school regulations; and (b) the amendment was adopted in a unanimous fashion.

(k) On April 16, 2012, the Defendant enacted and promulgated the regulations on the selection of candidates for the president as prescribed by Article 1303 of the C University Regulations, and on April 25, 2012, amended and promulgated the remainder of Article 12(3) as prescribed by Article 1304 of the C University Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “Revision of the school regulations”) as the “Revision of the Regulations by April 25, 2012,” and “an amendment of the regulations by March 30, 2012,” respectively.

【Unsatisfy-founded fact-finding, Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 9, 14 (including each lot number case in the case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 26, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion

The amendment to the school regulations of March 30, 2012 is merely the introduction of the president's public offering system, and thus, it does not cause direct changes in the plaintiffs' rights obligations. Therefore, it cannot be said that an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation is not subject to administrative litigation.

B. Determination

(1) If a school regulation itself does not directly change the specific rights and obligations of members, but rather a general and abstract provision pertaining to educational organization, school administration, etc., it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition. However, if, without intervention in a separate enforcement act based on the school regulation, it directly affects the specific rights and legal interests of the sexual origin, it constitutes an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation.

(2) The autonomy of a university is the fundamental right of the Constitution, essential to guarantee the freedom of learning guaranteed by Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and its subject is basically entitled to participate in the election of a candidate for the president of a university, and this right is included in the essential contents of the university’s autonomy (see Constitutional Court Order 2005Hun-Ma1047, Apr. 27, 2006). In addition, the autonomy of a university was traditionally constituted a faculty meeting composed of professors performing academic activities. The right to appoint the president of a national university under the current law was to the President. However, since the introduction of the direct election system to the president in a national university since the 1990s, most of the university members recommended by the president were appointed by the president to appoint the president of a university, and the president respected the will of the university president in appointing the president of a university.

Meanwhile, it does not necessarily require the university to place a direct election in relation to the selection of a candidate for the head of the university. However, it is sufficient to provide the university with an opportunity to determine the method of election by an agreement among university faculty members. Therefore, Article 24(2) and (3) of the former Public Educational Officials Act restricts the university's autonomy, but it is sufficiently guaranteed that the university can select one of the "the method of selecting the head of the university by the recommendation committee for appointment of the head of the university" and the "the method of selecting by the method and procedure agreed upon by the university faculty members" in the relevant university. Thus, the above provision cannot be said to infringe on the essential part of the university's autonomy.

(3) As can be seen based on the above facts, C University has operated the president recruitment system pursuant to Article 24(3)2 of the former Public Educational Officials Act prior to the enactment of the school regulations on March 30, 2012. Following the amendment of the school regulations on March 30, 2012, “the method of selecting candidates for the head of a university according to the method and procedure agreed upon by the faculty members of the relevant university” was changed to the president selection recommendation committee similar to that stipulated in Article 24(3)1 of the former Public Educational Officials Act. Thus, the amendment of the school regulations on March 30, 2012, and the Plaintiffs, who are C University professors, lose their right to select candidates for the head of the relevant university. Considering the above legal principles, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the above implementation of the school regulations based on the school regulations has no effect on the Defendant’s right to participate directly in the administrative disposition, i.e., the right of the head of the university., 201.

3. Whether the amendment to school regulations of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) procedural illegality

(A) Concerning the amendment of school regulations of March 30, 2012

1) The amendment to the school regulations as of March 30, 2012, separated from the initial amendment to the school regulations, did not go through separate procedures for publication of the proposed school regulations. The amendment to the school regulations as of March 30, 2012 is illegal without undergoing lawful procedures for publication of the proposed regulations.

2) After deliberation by the Policy Deliberative Committee, which is an essential procedure at the time of amendment to school regulations, the Regulations Deliberative Committee newly established a new organization by amending the original amendment to school regulations. Since the Policy Deliberative Committee has not deliberated again on the amended amendment to school regulations, the amendment to school regulations on March 30, 2012 was made without deliberation by the Policy Deliberative Committee and was unlawful.

3) Although the amendment of the school regulations and the school regulations of the first and second amendment was rejected at the E Campus conference, the amendment of the school regulations of March 30, 2012, which was made by disregarding the result of the resolution of the E Campus conference, a resolution authority, was unlawful.

4) On March 27, 2012, at the 182 Teaching Council at the 182nd Teaching Council at the C University, a resolution on the second amendment of the school regulations was postponed, and the Council was not opened on March 30, 2012, and the amendment of the school regulations on March 30, 2012 was made without deliberation by the Council and was unlawful.

(B) Matters pertaining to the amendment of school regulations of April 25, 2012

1) The amendment procedures for the initial amendment of school regulations shall be deemed to have been terminated due to the amendment and promulgation of a part of the draft school regulations as of March 30, 2012. Since no separate proposal was made for the amendment of school regulations on April 25, 2012, and the remainder of the draft school regulations, excluding the meeting of Council Council members, were not deliberated upon by the administrative body of the first instance. Thus, the amendment of school regulations on April 25, 2012 is unlawful as it did not go through legitimate publication and examination procedures.

2) Even if the initial procedure for amendment of school regulations has not been completed, the amendment of the school regulations as of April 25, 2012 differs from the initial amendment of the school regulations publicly announced as of March 8, 2012. As such, the amendment of the school regulations as of April 25, 2012 without undergoing a new procedure for public announcement of the amendment of the school regulations after undergoing deliberation by several deliberative bodies, is unlawful. In particular, the amendment of Article 2(3) of the Addenda (Rules No. 1047 of February 27, 2009) was not included in the initial amendment of the school regulations as well as the first amendment of the school regulations and the second amendment of the school regulations as of April 10, 2012, since it did not meet the requirements for public announcement of the amendment of the school regulations as of April 25, 2012, it did not meet the requirements for public announcement of the amendment of the school regulations as of February 1, 2012.

3) The amendment of school regulations must necessarily undergo deliberation by the Policy Deliberative Committee. However, at the time of the amendment of school regulations as of April 25, 2012, it did not undergo deliberation by the Integrated Policy Deliberative Committee. In addition, after the deliberation of the Policy Deliberative Committee, the Regulations Deliberative Committee revised the amendment of the school regulations as to the amendment of the school regulations as of April 25, 2012 without deliberation by the Policy Deliberative Committee. Therefore, the amendment of school regulations as of April 25, 2012 was made without deliberation by the Policy Deliberative Committee.

4) The amendment of the school regulations on April 25, 2012, which was made on April 25, 2012 by disregarding the result of the resolution by the school affairs council, even though both the amendment of the school regulations and the second amendment of the school regulations at the E Campus meeting were rejected.

(2) Violation of law in content

(A) Matters pertaining to the amendment of school regulations of March 30, 2012

The act of having the General Committee on Recommendation of Candidates for the President of University, the President Appointment Recommendation Committee, and the President Recommendation Management Committee shared with the duties of recommending candidates for the head of university is illegal to reduce the appointment recommendation committee for the head of university as stipulated in Article 24 of the former Public Educational Officials Act.

(B) Matters pertaining to the amendment of school regulations of April 25, 2012

The amendment of the school regulations of April 25, 2012, in disregarding the intent of the Integrated Understanding that C University will operate as a one university 2 campus system, was made for the purpose of combining the campus professors’ meetings, school affairs meetings, etc. Accordingly, a small number of persons changing the interests of E Campus at the integrated professor’s meeting, school affairs meeting, etc. were forced to change the interests of E Campus compared to D campus. In fact, after the amendment of the school regulations of this case, the structural reform of the instant school regulations was unilaterally disadvantageous to E Campus.

(b) Relevant statutes, and school regulations;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to the allegation of illegality in procedure

(A) Concerning the amendment of school regulations of March 30, 2012

1) Whether a proposal or announcement procedure is defective: Illegal

According to Articles 101 and 102 of the School Regulations of C University, in order to amend the school regulations of C University, a proposal for amendment shall be proposed by the president or at least 1/7 of full-time faculty members, and the president shall publish the proposed school regulations for at least seven days as above. The purport of the provision that requires the procedures for announcement of such proposal is to grant democratic legitimacy and reflect the opinions of the members of the universities by gathering consensus on the amendment of the school regulations, because it may affect the rights and obligations of university members in the event of the amendment of the school regulations.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, i.e., Daomom’s situation known by the foregoing recognition, i.e., (i) the abolition of the presidential election system and the introduction of the president recruitment system, which are the contents of school regulations amended on March 30, 2012, were included in the initial draft of school regulations proposed by the Defendant on March 8, 2012; (ii) the Defendant intended to amend all initial draft of school regulations at once, but suspended a resolution on the amendment of school regulations at the first 182 Teaching Council of C University on March 27, 2012; (iii) the Defendant introduced a new presidential election system by March 3, 2012 pursuant to the letter of understanding prepared with the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, and Technology; (iv) the Defendant’s proposal was inevitable to have been implemented, such as reducing the number of students, budget reduction, etc.; and (iv) accordingly, the Defendant did not separately propose the amendment of school regulations by separating it from the president’s draft of school regulations.

2) Whether or not a deliberation of the Policy Deliberative Committee has not been made: Wrongfully;

C. Article 103 of the School Regulations provides that an amendment to school regulations shall undergo deliberation by the Policy Deliberative Committee, the Campus, and the Council members. The grounds for such amendment are as follows: (a) to examine an amendment to school regulations according to the characteristics of each deliberative body and discover and correct errors that may arise in the amendment; or (b) to establish a more desirable amendment to all the members of universities and colleges by reflecting the opinions of university members through discussions; (c) by reflecting the opinions of each deliberative body upon various stages of deliberation, the amendment to school regulations is naturally premised on the procedures for the amendment to school regulations; and (d) as such, the amendment to school regulations is not entirely different from the first public notice of the amendment to school regulations, every time the amendment to the school regulations is to be amended; (b) to ensure that the amendment to the school regulations has not been made again through the first public notice of the amendment to the school regulations; and (c) to ensure that the amendment to the school regulations was made for a prolonged period of time, not through the second amendment to the school regulations regulations.

If so, after the Policy Deliberative Committee deliberated on the amendment of school regulations as originally adopted on March 15, 2012, it was amended by the Regulations Deliberative Committee according to the opinions presented on March 16, 2012. Since then, the amendment of school regulations took place without deliberation by the Policy Deliberative Committee again on the amendment of school regulations, considering the contents of the amendment, it cannot be deemed that the Policy Deliberative Committee had no deliberation by the Policy Deliberative Committee on the amendment of school regulations as of March 3, 2012, since it deliberated on the amendment of school regulations as to the first amendment of the Regulations, considering the contents of the amendment, the amendment’s opinion presented by the Policy Deliberative Committee was mostly about wording or expression, and the organization was newly stipulated in Article 12(3), but the above organization did not clearly stipulate the amendment’s new proposal as to the amendment of school regulations under Article 2, which was the first amendment, along with the amendment of the school regulations, and therefore, it did not have any reason to establish the new regulations.

3) Whether a campus does not undergo a deliberation by the meeting of the campus: Denial;

As seen earlier, Article 103 of the C University Regulations stipulates that a draft of the school regulations shall undergo deliberation by the due diligence Deliberation Committee, campus, and deliberation by the Council members. Article 26(1) of the former C University Regulations (amended by Rules No. 1300, Mar. 30, 2012; hereinafter the same) also stipulates that the C University’s school regulations shall be established by campus to “to deliberate on important matters concerning the operation of the C University,” and Article 103(5) of the same Regulations lists matters concerning the enactment, amendment, and repeal of school regulations as one of the matters to be deliberated by the Council.

However, Article 26 (4) of the former Regulations on School Regulations provides that the number of parties to a meeting of a school affairs shall be met. However, Article 103 of the Regulations on C University provides that "not a "decision by the school affairs of each camp" shall undergo a "decision by the school regulations" with the aim of amending the regulations, 2) the prior meaning of "examination, discussion," and 3) the prior meaning of "decision" shall be "c)", and as such, the reasons for the amendment of the regulations are to reflect the opinions of university members through discussions, and the reasons for the amendment of the regulations do not require the above agencies to decide whether to amend the regulations, and as such, it is merely a mere deliberative body for the amendment of the regulations, not a mere deliberative body for the amendment of the regulations, the defendant's objection to the amendment of the regulations on the camp and the amendment of the regulations on the camp shall not be deemed to otherwise be subject to the premise that the amendment of the regulations on the camp and the amendment of the regulations on the Association.

(iv)whether it has not gone through the deliberation of the Council: positive;

A) Articles 7 and 8 of the Regulations on the Operation of the C University Council members established pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulations on the Regulation of the C University members lists matters concerning the enactment and amendment of the regulations, the enactment of the main regulations, and the significant modification thereof as matters to be deliberated on by the Council members’ meeting, and stipulate that deliberation on matters to be deliberated on by the Council members’ meeting shall be completed by the resolution at the general meeting of the Council members’ meeting. The general meeting of the Council members shall be convened with the attendance of the majority of the incumbent members, and the resolution shall be made by the affirmative votes of the majority of the

However, as seen in paragraph (h) of the above facts, since the second amendment of the school regulations at C University No. 182, which was held on March 27, 2012, failed to pass a resolution on the second amendment of the school regulations, the deliberation of the Council was not completed, and even March 30, 2012, which was decided to open the plenary session at the plenary session of the Council Council, it cannot be deemed that there was a deliberation of the Council on the second amendment of the school regulations. Accordingly, the amendment of the school regulations as of March 30, 2012 was made without deliberation by the Council, and it is unlawful, and this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is with merit.

B) As to this, Defendant presented the content of Article 12(3) at the time of deliberation on the remainder of the amendment other than Article 12(3) of the second amendment of the school regulations, which was amended separately on March 30, 2012, at the 183th Council of Professors of the Korea University, which was held on April 10, 2012. However, Defendant asserted that this part of the amendment was ratified or the procedural defect was cured by the deliberation of the Council of Council members on April 10, 2012.

First, we examine the assertion of ratification. Ratification of an invalidation is a single act in which the parties are aware that the former juristic act is null and void and that the effect of the act is attributed to themselves (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da112299, Feb. 13, 2014; 2012Da106607, Mar. 27, 2014). However, in the instant case, the deliberation of the first 182 Teaching Council of the C University on the draft amendment of the school regulations is not null and void, and the legal principles on ratification of a juristic act cannot be applied as it is nonexistent. Furthermore, the same applies to the ratification of a null and void act, barring any other legal provision that acknowledges retroactive invalidation. This is likewise applicable to the case where a legitimate ratification of a null and void resolution is made after the amendment of the school regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da35033, Jun. 24, 2011).

Next, we examine the assertion of healing. The determination of illegality of an administrative disposition in an administrative litigation shall be based on the current state of the law and fact at the time of the administrative disposition, and it shall not be affected by the amendment or repeal of the law or changes in the actual state after the disposition. The cure of defective administrative act is not in principle permissible from the perspective of the nature of administrative act or the rule of law. An exceptional case where an administrative act is repeated and permission is granted for the sake of the legal stability of the parties, it shall be recognized for a combined purpose according to specific circumstances to the extent that it does not infringe upon the rights and interests of the people (see Supreme Court Decisions 201Du10684, Jul. 9, 200; 2010Du2579, Aug. 26, 201). 1) The remaining part of the amendment of the school regulations, including the above 20th amendment of the school regulations, is not limited to the 10th amendment of the school regulations, which is within the scope of 20th amendment of the university.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(B) Matters pertaining to the amendment of school regulations of April 25, 2012

(i)whether a vehicle has terminated due to an amendment to school regulations of March 30, 2012: denial of an amendment to the proposed school regulations;

As examined in this paper, the amendment of the school regulations as of March 30, 2012, as of March 30, 2012, as seen in paragraph 3(c)(1)(A)(10 pages of the judgment), was made and promulgated first by separating part of the draft school regulations, which is urgently required. Thus, the amendment of the school regulations as of April 25, 2012, should be deemed to have been made after going through the procedure of the amendment of the school regulations, on the grounds that there was an amendment of the school regulations as of March 30, 2012, on the ground that there was an amendment of the school regulations as of March 30, 2012, the amendment procedure for the amendment of the school regulations as of March 30, 2012 has not been completed. Accordingly, it does not require from the beginning the first proposal and deliberation procedure for the amendment of the school regulations as to the draft after March 30, 2012. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the premise above is without merit.

2) Whether a proposed and proposed amendment of school regulations must be followed again: denial of such amendment:

As examined in paragraph (3)(1)(A)(2)(A)(2), the amendment of the school regulations is naturally premised on the amendment of the school regulations, reflecting the opinion of each deliberative body, and the amendment of the contents of the school regulations by examining the opinions of each deliberative body. Thus, unless the amendment of the school regulations is essentially different from the amendment of the school regulations publicly notified as originally proposed, the amendment of the school regulations should not be made from the beginning once it is amended.

Meanwhile, as seen in the above facts, the amendment of Article 2(3) of the Addenda (Rules 1047, Feb. 27, 2009) that was not included in the initial amendment of school regulations was proposed and resolved as an emergency amendment only at the 183 faculty council of the Korea University, which was held on April 10, 2012. However, this is not a new bill pursuant to Article 6(5) of the Regulations on the Operation of the C University, to propose a new amendment of school regulations separate from the second amendment proposed as an agenda at the plenary meeting of the Council Council members, but there is no reason to believe that there was no significant difference between the above amendment of the regulations and the duty to maintain the regulations of the Korea University, since it presented an opinion on the original amendment of the regulations, and there is no reason to view that there was no significant difference between the above amendment of the regulations and the duty to maintain the regulations of the Korea University.

3) Whether a person has not undergone a deliberation of the Policy Deliberative Committee: Irregularly;

According to the evidence mentioned above, the Defendant amended C University Regulations to consolidate the former F University in accordance with the comprehensive understanding note on March 1, 2006. Article 8(37) of the Addenda (Rules No. 903) at that time to “C University D Camp Policy Deliberation Committee Regulations”, and the “C University Policy Deliberative Committee” changed the “C University D Camp Camp Policy Deliberation Committee” to “C University D Campus Policy Deliberation Committee”. However, since there is no evidence to support that the Policy Deliberative Committee was established separately in E Campus, the Policy Deliberative Committee of C University’s Policy Deliberative Committee of the C University is flexible. Accordingly, the first amendment of school regulations should be deemed to have undergone a policy deliberation of the C University D Camp Policy Deliberation Committee. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23748, Apr. 25, 2012>

In addition, as examined in paragraph 3(3)(1)(A)(2)(the text of judgment 11-12), the amendment of the first amendment of the school regulations as amended according to the opinion of the regular deliberation committee cannot be deemed to be qualitatively different from the original amendment of the school regulations. Thus, as long as the Policy Deliberative Committee has deliberated on the amendment of the school regulations, it is not the Policy Deliberative Committee’s deliberation on the amendment of the school regulations as of April 25, 2012.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

4) Whether a campus does not undergo a deliberation by the meeting of the campus and the meeting of the secretary general: Denial;

As examined in Section 3(a)(1)(3)(a)(2)(3)(2)(2)(3)(2)(2)(2)(2)(3)(2)(2)(2)(2)(3)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(3)(2)(3)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(3)).

(2) Determination as to the allegation of illegality in content

(A) Concerning the amendment of school regulations of March 30, 2012

1) According to Article 24(1), (2), and (3) of the former Public Educational Officials Act, a university shall establish a recommendation committee for appointment of the head of a university (hereinafter referred to as the “election recommendation committee”) to recommend the appointment of the head of a university. The appointment recommendation committee shall recommend a candidate directly selected by the appointment recommendation committee as prescribed by the relevant university or a candidate selected in accordance with the methods and procedures agreed upon by the relevant university teachers as prescribed by the relevant university or the head of the relevant university as a candidate for the head of the relevant university. Meanwhile, according to Article 24(4) of the former Public Educational Officials Act and Article 12-3 of the former Public Educational Officials Appointment Recommendation Committee (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23767, May 7, 2012), the appointment recommendation committee shall be comprised of not less than 10 but not more than 50 members, and the ratio of female members shall be more than

C. According to the amendment of the school regulations on March 30, 2012, "the methods and procedures agreed upon by the faculty members of the relevant university for the selection of candidates for the president of the relevant university" was modified from the president recruitment system to the president recruitment system, and the specific details are prescribed in the Regulations on the Selection of Candidates for the President of the C University (C University Rule No. 1303 and No. 9) enacted on April 16, 2012. According to this, C University recommended the invitation of persons to be selected as the president candidates, "the Committee on Recommendation for Appointment of Candidates" recommended by the President, "the Committee on Recommendation for Appointment of Candidates for the President," "the Committee on Recommendation for Appointment of Candidates for the President, the Committee on Recommendation for all Administrations for the Selection of Candidates for the President," and "the Committee on Recommendation for Appointment of Candidates for the President shall be comprised of 50 members, and the ratio of female Council members among the total members shall be at least 20%.

2) Following the amendment to the school regulations of March 30, 2012, the General Appointment Recommendation Committee has to choose two of the president candidates invited and recommended by the President Extraordinary Selection Recommendation Committee. However, this is to allocate the duties to which the appointment recommendation committee under the former Public Educational Officials Act is in charge of the president appointment recommendation committee under the school regulations and the president candidate recommendation committee under Article 24(3)2 of the former Public Educational Officials Act, and it does not reduce the number of the appointment recommendation committee under Article 24 of the former Public Educational Officials Act. In addition, the Cuniversity complies with the provisions under the former Public Educational Officials Act, since it complies with the composition of the president appointment recommendation committee, the amendment to the school regulations of March 30, 2012 does not go against Article 24 of the former Public Educational Officials Act. Therefore, the above Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

(B) Matters pertaining to the amendment of school regulations of April 25, 2012

C. It is desirable for C University to faithfully implement its contents by integrating the former F University in accordance with the comprehensive MOU. However, given the nature of “YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU have no legal binding force on the MOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.D.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U.DU.D.D.D.D.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the amendment of the school regulations of March 30, 2012 is illegal since it did not undergo deliberation by the Council. However, the amendment of the school regulations of April 25, 2012 is legitimate. [Plaintiff asserts that the illegality of the provisions of the C University Selection (C University Rule No. 1303) is also asserted in the selection of president of C University, but this is not a subject matter of lawsuit of this case, and it is not determined separately.

4. Judgment of assessment;

In a case where there is an error in administrative procedure, the procedure’s illegality becomes an independent illegal ground for the pertinent administrative disposition, and in a case where an administrative disposition is unlawful, it is a principle to revoke it when it is unlawful, and the revocation and alteration of such unlawful disposition is not exceptionally permitted when it is extremely inappropriate for the public welfare. Thus, the application of an assessment judgment must be limited under extremely strict requirements, and the application of an assessment judgment should be determined by comparing and comparing the necessity to revoke or alter an illegal or unreasonable administrative disposition, and the situation against public welfare that may arise due to the revocation and alteration thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du8359, Dec. 10, 200).

The above facts and evidence revealed as follows: ① C school was designated as a national university with priority in structural reform on September 23, 201, and agreed to abolish the president’s election system on November 29, 201; ② there was no objection or demand to establish a new school regulations under Article 12(3) of the School Regulations providing for the matters concerning the presidential election system at E Camps; rather, C university’s amendment was rejected on the ground that it did not accept the request of the president to amend its school regulations in the order of presidential appointment at the time of the vacancy under Article 12(2) and its adoption; ③, as of the date, most national universities were abolished, and ④ as of March 30, 201, it appears that C university’s amendment was likely to abolish the presidential election system at the 20th National University’s first instance court’s first instance court’s new school regulations by reason of the 10th amendment’s procedural violation of the school regulations.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed, but it is so decided as per Disposition by specifying the illegality of the amendment of their school regulations on March 30, 2012.

Ethical police officer

Ise Jina

former Public Educational Officials Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013)

Article 24 (Appointment of Head of University)

(1) Universities and colleges (referring to the schools specified in the subparagraphs of Article 2 of the Higher Education Act, but excluding public universities; hereafter in this Article and Articles.

The head of a university or college shall obtain recommendation from the relevant university or college.

Appointment of President at the recommendation of the Minister of Education, Science and Technology: Provided, That the head of a newly established university shall be appointed

Persons who hold office as the dean due to use or change in the name of the head of a university shall be the president of the relevant university.

a person who holds office as president shall be appointed as the dean of the relevant university during his/her term of office.

Appointment by the President at the proposal of the Minister of Education, Science and Technology

(2) A university appointing and recommending committee for the head of a university (hereinafter referred to as "committee for recommending the appointment of the head of a university")

The "Recommendation Committee" shall be established.

(3) A recommendation committee shall, as prescribed by the relevant university, act in any of the following manners:

A candidate for the head of the school shall be selected.

1. Selection at a meeting of the recommendation committee;

2. Selection according to the methods and procedures agreed upon by faculty members of the relevant university;

(4) Matters necessary for the composition, operation, etc. of the Recommendation Committee shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree, and a certain ratio of members shall be

Awards shall be women.

Gu Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23767, May 7, 2012)

Article 12-3 (Composition and Operation of University Appointment Recommendation Committee)

(1) A committee for recommending the appointment of the president of a university under Article 24 (2) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "committee") shall be determined by the relevant university.

members shall be comprised of not less than 10 but not more than 50 members, and the associate professor of the relevant university shall be the members.

A teacher on the award shall be a teacher on the award: Provided, That where it is deemed necessary, other persons than the university concerned shall be members

may be deemed to have been made.

(2) The ratio of female members of the Committee shall be at least 20/100, and female members of the Committee shall be eligible for membership of the Committee.

In the case of a university which fails to meet the ratio of female members due to shortage of teachers, the ratio;

otherwise determined.

director of the former C University Regulations (amended by Rule 1300, Mar. 30, 2012)

Article 1 (Purpose)

In order to realize the basic ideology of the Charter of the C University (hereinafter referred to as the “university”), this school regulation aims to establish educational objectives of the University and to prescribe matters concerning its organization and operation to achieve such objectives.

Article 12 (President)

(1) The president shall take charge of the operation, education, and research activities of this university, and externally represent this university.

(c)

(2) Where the president is vacant or is unable to perform his/her duties due to an accident, etc., the Ministry of Justice of the D Campus.

The authority of the head, the student director, and the planning director shall be exercised on his behalf.

§ 18 (Council of Professors)

(1) To deliberate on important matters concerning the operation and development of this university, full-time professors of this university.

A whole faculty council composed of all the professors shall be established.

(2) In order to deliberate on important matters concerning the operation and development of each campingus at this university.

A faculty meeting for each camping event comprised of all full-time professors belonging to the relevant campus shall be established.

(3) In order to deliberate on important matters concerning the operation and development of each university of this university.

(Divisions) Each university (department) shall have a faculty meeting for each university (department) comprised of all full-time professors belonging to the relevant university (department).

(4) Important matters concerning the operation and development of each specialized graduate school of this university (referring to the provisions of Article 28 (5).

In order to deliberate on matters to be deliberated by the specialized graduate school committee, the specialized graduate school shall be located at each specialized graduate school.

Each faculty council shall be established.

Article 19 (Total Professors Association)

(1) The entire faculty council shall be a competition which the president deems necessary for the purpose referred to in Article 18 (1).

meeting shall be convened in the first place.

(2) The president shall preside over the entire faculty council.

(3) The full-time faculty council shall pass resolutions with the attendance of a majority of all the full-time faculty members and concurrent vote of a majority of them

(4) The full-time faculty referred to in paragraph (3) shall not include temporary retirees and long-term business starters as of the opening date.

Article 19-2 (Pampers' Professor Meeting)

(1) The faculty conference for each campus shall be classified into regular meetings and extraordinary meetings.

(2) Regular meetings shall be convened once a year, and extraordinary meetings shall be held by the president (E Campus) as the vice president, or as deemed necessary.

At least 1/5 of the registered full-time faculty members or at the request of the Council members.

Camp Professors's meeting shall be convened by the president (E Campus shall be Vice-President) and shall be the chairperson.

(4) A professor's association by campus shall report the operation of a university by the president (the Vice president for the E Campus) and the activities of the president of the Pyeongtaek's Council.

It shall hear and discuss the proposed agenda.

(5) Resolutions shall be adopted with the attendance of a majority of all-time professors and with the consent of a majority of all-time professors.

(6) The full-time professor referred to in paragraphs (2) and (4) shall not include temporary retirees and long-term business starters as of the opening date.

section 3.

(7) Matters concerning the operation of a faculty meeting by campingus shall be separately prescribed for each campingus.

Article 26 (School Council)

(1) In order to deliberate on important matters concerning the operation of this university, a school affairs council shall be established in each campus.

(2) The composition of a school affairs meeting by campingus shall be as follows:

1. D campus: The president, the principal of a graduate school, the principal of a school, the principal of a school, the principal of a student, the planning director, the secretary general, and the director of an industry-academic cooperation foundation;

Not more than three professors of assigned positions, appointed by officials responsible for informatization and the president.

2. E campus: Vice-President, president of a specialized school for disaster prevention, president of an industrial science graduate school, dean, principal of school, director general of administrative headquarters, and industrial complex;

Not more than ten assigned faculty members appointed by the director of the academic cooperation branch, the director of the central library, and other vice-presidents.

(3) The school affairs meeting shall be convened by the President (E Campus) and chaired by him/her.

(4) The school affairs meeting shall be held with the attendance of not less than two-thirds of registered persons, and with the consent of a majority of the members present.

partnership.

(5) The school affairs meeting shall deliberate on the following matters:

1. Matters concerning the education of and support for universities and colleges;

2. Matters concerning the establishment and closure of faculties, facilities annexed thereto, and research institutes;

3. Matters concerning the establishment, amendment, and repeal of school regulations and other regulations;

4. Matters concerning admission, completion, and graduation;

5. Matters concerning examinations and examinations;

6. Matters concerning scholarships;

7. Other matters deemed necessary by the President of UNIST (E Campus).

§ 103. Deliberation and promulgation

A proposed amendment to school regulations shall be promulgated by the president within 60 days from the date of public notice through the deliberation of the Policy Deliberative Committee, the camping Committee, and the Council members' meeting.

/School Regulations (amended by Rule 1300, Mar. 30, 2012)

Article 12 (President)

(1) The president shall take charge of the operation, education, and research activities of this university, and externally represent this university.

(c)

(2) Where the president is vacant or is unable to perform his/her duties due to an accident, etc., the Ministry of Justice of the D Campus.

The authority of the head, the student director, and the planning director shall be acting on his behalf in the order of the head.

(3) Candidates for the President of UNIST shall be selected by a public invitation, and they shall be selected by the President, the Committee on Examination of Candidates and Appointment.

The president shall appoint a management body for recommending candidates for the president and detailed matters shall be separately prescribed.

/School Regulations (amended by Rule 1304, Apr. 25, 2012)

Article 12 (Presidents)

(1) The president shall take charge of the operation, education, and research activities of this university, and externally represent this university.

(c)

(2) If the President becomes vacant or is unable to perform his/her duties due to an accident, etc., the Vice President, Superintendent General, and Director General

The Minister of Students and the Planning Director shall act on behalf of the Minister in the order of the Minister. (No. 25 April 2012)

(3) Candidates for the President of UNIST shall be selected by a public invitation, and they shall be selected by the President, the Committee on Examination of Candidates and Appointment.

The President shall appoint a management body for recommending candidates for the president, and detailed matters shall be separately prescribed.

§ 18 (Council of Professors)

(1) To deliberate on important matters concerning the operation and development of this university, full-time professors of this university.

A whole faculty council composed of all the professors shall be established.

(2) and (2) Deleted. < by Act No. 11471, Apr. 25, 20

(3) In order to deliberate on important matters concerning the operation and development of each university of this university.

(Divisions) Each university (department) shall have a faculty council for each university (department) comprised of all full-time professors belonging to the relevant university (department).

(4) Important matters concerning the operation and development of each specialized graduate school of this university (the provisions of Article 28 (5)).

In order to deliberate on the matters deliberated by the specialized graduate school committee, the specialized graduate school shall be located at each specialized graduate school.

Each faculty council shall be established.

Article 19 (Total Professors)

(1) The entire faculty council shall be classified into regular meetings and extraordinary meetings, and the president shall convene and preside over such meetings.

4.25.)

(2) and (2) Deleted. < by Act No. 11473, Apr. 25, 2012

(3) Regular meetings shall be convened once a year, and extraordinary meetings shall be held once a year, where the president deems it necessary or registered full-time professors.

The meeting shall be convened at least one meeting of the Council members or at the request of the Council members.

(4) The entire faculty council shall hear reports by the president on the operation of the university and the activities of the president of the Council and shall be proposed.

shall deliberate.

(5) The whole faculty council shall take a decision with the attendance of a majority of all the incumbent faculty members and the consent of a majority of all the faculty members present

(6) The full-time professor referred to in paragraphs (3) and (5) shall not include temporary retirees and long-term business starters as of the opening date.

(4) Newly Inserted by Act No. 11384, Apr. 25, 2012>

(7) Matters concerning the operation of the entire faculty council shall be separately prescribed.

Article 19-2 (Paus Professor's Meeting by Campus)

Article 21 (Council of Council Members)

(1) In order to deliberate on important matters concerning the development and education of this university, a C University deliberation council shall be established, and campaigns shall be established.

The subcommittee of the Bupyeong-gu Council (hereinafter referred to as the "subcommittee") shall be established for each one.

(2) The Council of Council Members shall be comprised of not more than 70 persons, such as ordinary professors, faculty members to be assigned to positions, and teachers related to education, and three minutes of the total Council members.

In principle, at least two faculty members shall be comprised of faculty members.

(3) The term of office of each member shall be two years: Provided, That the term of office of the president shall be commissioned by the president from among the assignment officers of the headquarters.

the term of office shall be the period of his/her position.

(4) A chairperson and two vice-chairpersons (one person for each campingus) shall be established in the Bupyeong-gu Council, and they shall be elected from among the Council members.

(5) The chairperson shall represent the deliberation committee and preside over the meetings of the deliberation committee and the camping committee meetings, and the vice-chairperson shall be the chairperson.

shall assist the Speaker. D Campus Vice-Speakers shall have the duties of the Speaker, if the Speaker is publicly notified or delegated by the Speaker.

The E Campus Vice-Chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the E Campus Branch.

Article 23 (Matters subject to Deliberation by Council Members)

A deliberation committee shall deliberate on the following matters:

3. Matters concerning establishment and amendment of school regulations, and establishment of major regulations, and significant amendments thereto;

(2) The chairperson shall determine the matters to be deliberated by the sub-committee after deliberation by the Steering Committee.

Article 25 (Operating Rules)

(1) Detailed matters concerning the operation of the Deliberation Committee shall be separately prescribed.

(2) Detailed matters concerning the operation of the local branch shall be separately prescribed by campaigns.

Article 26 (School Council)

(1) There shall be established a school affairs council to deliberate on important matters concerning the operation of this university.

25.)

(2) The composition of the school affairs council shall be composed of the president, vice president, deans, deans, deans, deans, Minister for School Affairs, Minister for Planning, Minister for School Affairs, and Superintendent.

The head, secretary general, director general, director general, director of an industry-academic cooperation foundation, director of the operating planning office, officer responsible for informatization and the president shall be appointed.

The number of faculty members shall not exceed three. (No more than 2012, April 25, 201)

(3) The President shall convene and preside over the meetings of the school affairs council (the President shall convene and preside over such meetings, respectively).

(4) The school affairs meeting shall be held with the attendance of not less than two-thirds of the incumbent members, with the consent of a majority of the members present.

partnership.

(5) The school affairs meeting shall deliberate on the following matters:

1. Matters concerning the education and support of universities;

2. Matters concerning the establishment and closure of faculties, facilities annexed thereto, and research institutes;

3. Matters concerning the establishment, amendment, and repeal of school regulations and other regulations;

4. Matters concerning admission, completion, and graduation;

5. Matters concerning examinations and examinations;

6. Matters concerning scholarships;

7. Other matters that the president deems necessary (No. 2012, April 25, 201).

§ 101. Amendment to school regulations

Any amendment to this school regulation shall be proposed by the president or at least 1/7 of full-time faculty members.

§ 102. Notice of proposed amendments

(1) The president shall publicly announce a proposed amendment to school regulations for at least seven days, except in special cases.

(2) University members may submit an opinion on an amendment to school regulations announced through the head of a department to which they belong.

(3) The period and place following the submission of opinions referred to in paragraph (2) and other necessary matters shall be publicly announced when public announcement of amendments to school regulations is made

(c)

§ 103. Deliberation and promulgation

A proposed amendment to school regulations shall be promulgated by the President within 60 days from the date of publication through the deliberation of the Policy Deliberative Committee, the Committee of the principal, and the Committee of the Council. (No later than April 25, 2012.)

§ 104. Reports

If necessary, the president may report the amended school regulations to the Minister of Education, Science and Technology.

/School Regulations (Rules No. 903 of March 1, 2006)

Article 8 (Amendment to Other Provisions)

(7) Part of the regulations of the C University Policy Deliberative Committee shall be amended as follows:

The expulsion is referred to as the "Regulations for the Policy Deliberative Committee of the C University Campus", and, in Article 1, inserting the "C University" following the "C University", the "C University Policy Deliberative Committee" is referred to as the "C University Camp Policy Deliberative Committee".

/School Regulations (Rules No. 1047, Feb. 27, 2009, Regulation No. 1047)

§ 2. (Extraordinary Ministry of Law)

(3) Universities and colleges, which belong to temporary departments of law, shall maintain their organization as colleges until February 2017.

temporary law department shall maintain its faculty organization until the new students prior to 2008 graduate.

(art. 25, 2012)

m. Operational rules of C University Council members;

Article 2 (Composition)

The Council of Council Members shall be comprised of the Council members elected from among the full-time professors belonging to each specialized graduate school, college, independent faculty member, etc., and the ex officio Council members commissioned by the president (the Minister, the Secretary General, and the head of the administrative office), and the fixed number of Council members shall not exceed 70 persons.

Article 6 (General Meeting)

(1) A general meeting of a deliberation council member shall be held in writing by at least ten the president and at least 10 council members, or by at least 1/15 of all the incumbent professors.

The Speaker shall convene a meeting after deliberation by the Steering Committee by the Gu.

(5) At a plenary meeting, only the items notified in advance may be deliberated on: Provided, That more than a third of the assemblymen present at a plenary meeting shall be longer.

If there is an urgent order, the agenda may be added.

Article 7 (Opening of Meetings and Quorum)

(1) The plenary meeting shall be held with attendance of a majority of all incumbent National Assembly members, and decided with the majority vote.

Article 8 (Deliberation and Resolution)

(1) The following matters shall undergo deliberation by the Council members' meeting:

3. Matters concerning establishment and amendment of school regulations, and establishment of major regulations, and significant amendments thereto;

(2) The deliberation on the matters to be deliberated under paragraph (1) shall be completed by the resolution at a general meeting of the Council members.

Article 9 (Procedures for Deliberation at General Meeting)

(1) Except for matters requiring urgency, all agenda items shall be prior to a plenary session in advance.

It shall be deliberated upon by the original meeting. The relevant subcommittee shall revise the original bill pursuant to Article 15 (3).

When submitting a bill, the amendment bill shall be presented at a plenary meeting along with the original bill: Provided, That the relevant case shall be

Where the proposer (department) consents to the amendment of the original bill in the course of deliberation by a subcommittee, only the revised original bill shall be the only one.

b) be presented at the plenary session.

(5) Issuance of an urgent amendment bill at a plenary meeting with respect to the original or amendment bill presented under paragraph (1).

The vote of at least one third of the assemblymen present at the meeting shall be required. When an emergency amendment is proposed, all of them shall be proposed.

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (4), the emergency amendment shall be first deliberated on, and the emergency amendment shall be resolved on.

In cases of the original and amendment bills, it shall be deemed that they have been rejected.