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

Attorney Yang Sung-soo

Government Legal Service Corporation (Law Firm LLC)

Attorney Kim Jae-chul

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation established on December 2, 1975 for the purpose of higher education and vocational technical education, and established and operated B University (hereinafter referred to as the “instant university”) since 1994.

B. From September 15, 2014 to September 26, 2014, the Defendant issued a comprehensive audit request for the instant university to take measures (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition request”, and specify the requirements for individual dispositions on a yearly basis) on March 11, 2015, stating that “the collection of rental deposits for profit-making business” is 28 items as pointed out. On March 11, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of the comprehensive audit that “the collection of rental deposits for profit-making business” should be submitted within 60 days after the implementation of the requirements for disposition as to the said intellectual property. The part related to the instant disposition request in the instant case is as described in attached Form 1’s audit results as follows.

C. On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for review seeking revocation of the instant disposition items No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 14, 17, 22, 23, 24, and 25 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “matters requiring disposition”). On June 12, 2015, the Defendant changed the construction cost subject to measures for accounting of school expenses as stated in 24 items from KRW 17,083,00 to KRW 172,916,000, and all of the remaining applications were dismissed (hereinafter referred to as “matters requiring disposition”).

D. On June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission seeking the revocation of a request for disposition on issues with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but dismissed on February 2, 2016, on May 4, 2016, filed a lawsuit (Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap62320, hereinafter referred to as “related lawsuit”).

E. The Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to implement the detailed audit and inspection guidelines in attached Form 2 (referring to 11 cases of the request for disposition and 5,6,21 items per annum, which the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s completion report), 2,239,814,000 won financial measures in total, 3, and 43 status measures in relation to the 43 persons, and that the administrative sanctions in accordance with the guidelines for the Operation of the Standards for Administrative Sanctions for the Implementation of the Audit and Inspection of Universities (hereinafter “instant guidelines”) were 100 points or more (in case of the matters 6 items per annum, the Defendant reserved the administrative sanctions in accordance with the instant guidelines in consideration of the fact that there were no cases of change of affiliation up to the present date), the Defendant, on October 14, 2016, reserved the administrative sanctions in accordance with Article 60(2) of the Higher Education Act, Article 71-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, and attached Table 71-2, [Attachment 7].

F. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Administrative Court for the suspension of validity of the preceding disposition (Seoul Administrative Court 2016 A12519) and filed an appeal against the foregoing decision on December 23, 2016, but the Defendant was dismissed on January 20, 2017 and the above decision of acceptance became final and conclusive on February 8, 2017.

G. On March 8, 2017 and July 13, 2017, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to submit an additional implementation of the said non-performance to the Plaintiff. On March 17, 2017 and July 19, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted an implementation report to the Defendant on the following: (a) additional implementation was completed for the Defendant on matters No. 1, No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, and 21; and (b) additional implementation was completed for the Defendant on July 19, 2017; and (c) the Plaintiff submitted an implementation report on the additional completion of certain status measures or the implementation of the recall measures.

H. On August 11, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would be subject to a disposition that reduces 5% of the total number of admission quota for the year 2018 of the instant university on the ground that the administrative sanctions imposed under the instant guidelines exceed 100 points, on the ground that the administrative sanctions imposed under the instant guidelines are more than 100 points.

(i) On August 22, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to withhold the calculation of the administrative sanctions on the pertinent disposition request on the grounds that the pertinent lawsuit is in progress with respect to the matters requiring disposition, but on September 8, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff to reduce the total admission quota by 5% for the year 2018 of the pertinent university to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(j) In a related lawsuit, on September 29, 2017, the Seoul Administrative Court collected KRW 37,023,000,000, the agreed amount of which was not recovered on September 29, 2017 from the annual disposition request, and ordered to suspend the operation of the practical music course, the practice room, and to take a revenue measure of KRW 1,390,000,000,000, which was the lease deposit for the establishment of the Nbuilding lease contract, among the 22 items, to collect KRW 172,916,00,000 from the corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation") and to take a revenue measure for the accounts of school expenses, the Seoul Administrative Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim for a measure exceeding 128,550,80,000 among the items related to the annual disposition request, and 109,76,000,000,000,000,000.

After that, on June 8, 2018, the appellate court of the above case (Seoul High Court 2017Nu79273) ordered the suspension of the operation of the practical music department and practice room among the 22 items related to the disposition of the above case, and the termination of the N building lease contract, to take a revenue measure of KRW 1,390,000,000 from the annual 23 items to collect KRW 300,000,000 from this to take a revenue measure for the school expenses accounts, the appellate court of the above case (Seoul High Court 2017Nu79273) revoked the judgment of the appellate court, including the portion of the 128,550,000 among the items related to the construction cost from this case's 24 items, to collect KRW 172,916,00,000 from the annual 25 items, and dismissed the remaining part of the appellate court's appeal including the 109,76,000,00.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1-13, Eul evidence 1-3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Violation of validity of a decision to suspend validity of a preceding disposition

This case’s disposition is unlawful as nullifying the court’s decision to suspend its validity on the preceding disposition.

B. Non-existence of grounds for disposition

1) Measures under Article 60(2) of the Higher Education Act may be taken only when the Defendant fails to comply with the Defendant’s order for rectification or modification without justifiable grounds. Demand for disposition at the time of the instant disposition

The relevant lawsuit disputing the legality of the matter was continued, and part of the above disposition request was revoked, and part of the non-performance of the non-performance of the matter in this case was predicted by the dispute with the third party, and thus, there was a need to clarify the legitimacy of the pertinent lawsuit, and therefore, there is a justifiable reason for the existence of non-performance of the matter in this case.

2) In the case of administrative measures regarding items 4, 21 annually, the Plaintiff implemented or was in progress. However, since the implementation of the instant disposition was not completed at the time of the instant disposition, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff failed to implement without justifiable grounds.

3) Since the matters Nos. 22, 23, 24, and 25 were partially or entirely cancelled in the pertinent litigation, this part of the non-performance cannot be the ground for the instant disposition.

4) The failure to take disciplinary action or give warning to an employee of a private school among the non-performance of the instant case does not violate the education-related Acts and subordinate statutes or orders issued pursuant to such Acts and subordinate statutes under Article 60(1) and (2) of the Higher Education Act. Thus, the instant disposition cannot be the ground for the instant disposition, and the remaining demand for the measures to be taken on the status also does not exist any ground for taking measures due to the revocation of all or part of the demand for the disposition that caused the instant failure. Therefore

(c) deviation from and abuse of discretionary authority;

The guidelines of this case stipulate that the calculation of administrative sanctions may be reserved in cases where the lawsuit is pending, and the lawsuit also corresponds to the "litigation" prescribed in the above guidelines. The plaintiff faithfully implemented most of the request for the disposition of this case and needed to clarify its legitimacy through the related litigation. The reduction of the number of regular personnel for universities and colleges should be limited to exceptional cases. When reducing the number of regular personnel, it is impossible to operate academic affairs of some departments with a high regular weight and it is impossible to reduce the number of regular personnel for four years. In light of the fact that the disposition of this case is in violation of the principle of proportionality and thus, it is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 4 shall be as listed in attached Table 4.

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

(a) Whether the validity of a decision to suspend validity of the preceding disposition is violated;

The suspension of validity of the preceding disposition is merely a suspension of the preceding disposition that reduces the fixed number of admission in 2017 at the university of this case, considering that the damage cannot be recovered even if the university of this case won the lawsuit on the merits, and the validity of the preceding disposition that reduces the fixed number of admission in 2017 at the university of this case is valid. Thus, the validity of the request for the disposition of this case cannot be deemed as a violation of the decision of suspension of validity of the preceding disposition among the request for the disposition of this case.

B. Whether grounds for disposition exist

1) According to Article 60 of the Higher Education Act, including the Act on the Grounds of the Disposition in this case, if a school violates education-related Acts and subordinate statutes, or orders or school regulations in relation to facilities, equipment, classes, school affairs and other matters, the defendant may order the founder, operator, or the head of the school to correct or modify the violation within a fixed period. (Paragraph (1) If a person ordered to correct or modify the violation fails to comply with such order within the designated period without justifiable grounds, the defendant may cancel or suspend the violation, or take measures such as reducing the fixed number of students, closing the department, or suspending the enrollment of students.

(Paragraph 2)

According to Article 71-2 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, which provides for the criteria for administrative dispositions under Article 60 (2) of the Act, where a person ordered to make corrections or modifications pursuant to Article 60 (1) fails to comply with such order, the defendant shall take administrative dispositions in accordance with the above criteria, and the disposition may be mitigated in consideration of the motive, contents, degree, etc. of the violation, and where the standards for administrative dispositions are not determined in the individual standards, the administrative dispositions shall comply with the standards for administrative dispositions on similar violations, and where no similar violation exists, the administrative dispositions on the fixed number of students shall be taken

According to the instant guidelines, the Defendant has formulated the instant guidelines, which are the administrative disposition criteria for universities or colleges that failed to comply with the requirements for disposition of audit results pursuant to Article 60 of the Higher Education Act and Article 71-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, and accordingly set the level of administrative disposition accordingly. According to the instant guidelines, the Defendant shall calculate points for each non-compliance with the requirements for disposition of audit results and determine the level of administrative sanctions (Article 4). The above points shall be divided into 25 points for each case in the case of administrative, financial, and status measures; 20 points for each case in the case of financial measures (in the case of administrative, financial, and status measures), 10 points for 10 million won in the case of financial measures; 20 points for each person subject to disciplinary action; 10 points for each warning; 5 points for each case in the case of administrative disposition; 20 points for each case in the case of administrative disposition, but less than 30 points but less than 50 points for each case; 30 points for each case shall be reserved (5%).

2) The term “justifiable cause” under Article 60(2) of the Higher Education Act refers to a case where there is a circumstance under which it is impossible for the person who received an order for correction or modification under Article 60(2) to be subject to the order for correction or modification under Article 60(2) of the Higher Education Act to cause an error in the failure to perform the order. The Plaintiff’s filing a lawsuit against the Defendant regarding the legitimacy of the pertinent disposition request cannot immediately justify the failure to perform the whole of the above disposition request, and it can be acknowledged that there is a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff to not perform the order only with respect to the matters deemed unlawful and revoked. Of the instant non-performance of the matters, the Plaintiff’s intent to refuse the order for correction is related to a third party, and even if it is anticipated, it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason for the failure. The same applies to this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

3) The portion concerning 4 items per annum

A) The plaintiff's assertion

On March 15, 2017 and March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff sought a plan to utilize Rho land as education by consulting with the persons related to the Young-gun P 211 square meters and Q 126m2 (hereinafter referred to as "Rri land"), including the establishment of a new malter in Yong-gun P2, Young-gun, Young-gun, and then the sale procedure of Rri land was also in progress. Thus, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff fulfilled the four matters once a year.

B) Facts of recognition

(1) On March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff discussed a new plan for the establishment of a seed farm in Rho land and a plan for reinforcement of the existing seed farm on Rho land by holding working persons and meetings in charge of sports belonging to the Young-gun, but it was agreed to reinforce the existing seed farm due to the lack of budget of the Young-gun.

(2) On April 19, 2017, Younggun decided the first estimated budget on April 19, 2017, but the above budget was not included in the budget support for the KOA. Around that time, the Plaintiff stated that the budget support for the establishment of the KOA was not possible from the persons related to Young Cancer.

(3) As the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit additional performance details on July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff decided to sell “RR land to the Defendant on July 19, 2017,” and deemed that “the scheduled sale would be made as approved by the competent authorities by presenting the agenda to the board of directors on August 2017.”

(4) On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the convening of a meeting to the directors, and the board of directors held on August 23, 2017 passed a resolution on the agenda for sale of Ruri land, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval for disposal of Ruri land, which is an endowment for education, with the Defendant on August 25, 2017. The Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s report on the said disposal on September 7, 2017.

(5) On the other hand, on September 28, 2017, after the second drilling budget of Younggun was established in 2017, the head of Youngam Gun notified the Plaintiff on October 27, 2017 that the subsidies of KRW 12 million will be provided as part of the “2017 support project for the promotion of sports for all” to the Plaintiff.

(6) On February 23, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for RR land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to a purchaser on March 21, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 9, 15-17, 30, 32, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

C) Determination

The Defendant’s request for disposition related to matters 4 is to devise or sell RR land for educational purposes, and take revenue measures for school expenses accounts. Thus, the Defendant’s request for disposition cannot be deemed to have fulfilled its obligation merely after reviewing the method of using RR land for educational purposes. If the Defendant’s request for disposition related to matters 4 is not possible until the stage of securing the required expenses and establishing a specific utilization plan, or it is substantially impossible to utilize it for educational purposes, it can be deemed that the implementation has been completed to the extent that at least the time when it can be allowed to take revenue measures for school expenses accounts

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff reviewed the scheme to newly establish a Rri land on the premise that the budget support of the Younggun was uncertain from the beginning. However, even though the Defendant knew on April 2017 that it was impossible to provide the budget support for the establishment of the Rri land, the Plaintiff did not proceed with the procedure to sell the Rri land, upon receiving a request from the Defendant during the July 2017, reported the sale plan to the Defendant and followed the procedure of filing an application for approval of sale with the Defendant by the resolution of the board of directors around August 2017, since the Plaintiff failed to implement this part of the measure at the time of the instant disposition, and there were justifiable reasons for nonperformance.

It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is acceptable.

4) The portion of financial measures in the annual 21 items

A) The plaintiff's assertion

Around March 2016, the Plaintiff intended to complete an inventory inspection for S Campus and T Campus and to settle the accounts by reflecting them in the financial statements for the fiscal year 2016. However, for this purpose, the financial statements approved by the board of directors on April 28, 2017 for the settlement of accounts for the fiscal year 2016 at the latest, are not reflected in the result of the inventory inspection. Ultimately, the financial statements approved by the board of directors on April 27, 2018, which reflects the financial statements for the fiscal year 2017, are inappropriate including the grounds for disposition.

B) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and the entire argument, the Plaintiff’s report on the additional implementation items to the Defendant on March 17, 2017, and it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff did not reflect the result of the above inventory inspection in the financial statements until the time of the instant disposition, even though it declared that the Plaintiff completed the entire inventory inspection for Scampers and T Camps and would reflect the result in the financial statements for the fiscal year 2016. Thus, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s failure to implement the above part of the measures was neglected to the contents of the relevant provisions that are necessary for the Plaintiff’s approval of the board of directors for the implementation of the measures. As such, the Plaintiff’

5) Of the 23,24 annually, the portion of the financial measures

As seen earlier, the part of the annual incentive amount of KRW 300,00,000 among the 23 items related litigation to recover from this and take revenue measures for school expenses accounts. Among the 24 items, the part that collected KRW 172,916,000 per year from 0 to 128,550,000 and the part that collected KRW 128,80,000 in the annual amount to take revenue measures for school expenses accounts is illegal and confirmed to be revoked, each of the above facts became final and conclusive. Therefore, the failure of the Plaintiff to comply with the Defendant’s request for disposition revoked as above cannot be the ground for disposition in this case (for the remaining parts of the above 24 items, it cannot be deemed that there are justifiable grounds for failure to perform the above-mentioned disposition).

6) Part of the measures against the employee’s status

The instant disposition is based on Article 60 of the Higher Education Act, and is based on the foregoing provision, on the ground that the Defendant violated education-related statutes or orders or school regulations thereunder in respect of facilities, equipment, classes, school affairs, and other matters, and thus, the Plaintiff did not implement such orders within the designated period without justifiable grounds.

Article 19 of the "Regulations on Audit and Inspection of Ministry of Education, which is a direction of the Ministry of Education, which is the basis of the part concerning the status of employees, provides that the defendant's notification to the head of the agency subject to audit by the head of the agency subject to audit shall be subject to disciplinary action or reprimand in the event that the public official or the officer or employee commits an act falling under the grounds for disciplinary action or reprimand under the statutes or the relevant regulations, and that the degree thereof does not fall

However, the Ministry of Education's audit regulations stipulate matters necessary for the Minister of Education to conduct an audit on the affairs under his/her jurisdiction in accordance with relevant statutes, such as the Public Audit Act, Article 5 of the Higher Education Act, and Article 48 of the Private School Act. In order to take the same disciplinary measure as the disposition in this case on the ground that the Defendant merely notifies the Plaintiff of the audit results, deeming it a corrective order under Article 60 of the Higher Education Act, there must be a direct and clear legal basis for requesting the above status measures (Article 23(3) can be conducted where the head of an agency subject to audit and inspection fails to comply with the request for disposition or measures of audit results without justifiable grounds). However, the Private School Act provides that the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss a private school may request disciplinary action against the teachers of the private school and the head of the school at each level, and the "school is subject to guidance and supervision by the Minister of Education" does not have any legal basis for requesting the Defendant to take disciplinary action against the general employees of the private school, as in this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the part regarding the status of six employees (H, I, J, K, L, and M) among the non-performance of the instant case cannot be a ground for disposition.

7) Part concerning teachers in relation to their status measures

A) The plaintiff's assertion

The request for disciplinary action against a teacher was revoked in a related lawsuit, which is a part of the measures against the teacher's status, and thus is unlawful as the grounds for disciplinary action are not recognized.

B) Determination

In the relevant litigation, the fact that some or all of the matters related to the request for disciplinary action against president E and Vice-President F are revoked is as seen earlier, but the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable, since there are still sufficient grounds for disciplinary action against E and F.

C. Whether the disposition of this case deviates from or abused discretionary power

1) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest purpose to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and various circumstances pertaining thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du19297, Jul. 19, 2007).

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s instant disposition, which is the largest disposition as provided in Article 60 of the Higher Education Act, was excessively harsh and thus, is in violation of the principle of proportionality and is unlawful.

A) Of the non-performance of the instant case, when calculating the sanction points pursuant to the instant guidelines with respect to the matters that the Plaintiff failed to implement within the designated period without good cause, the cumulative premium rate of 20% is 115.2 points (=(50 + 6 + 40 points) ¡¿ 1.2 (Cumulative premium rate) as a result of the application of cumulative premium rate of 20%, and the cumulative premium rate of 115.2 (Cumulative premium rate) exceeding 100 points, which is the standard for reducing the admission quota of 5%, but this is a 204 point initially calculated by the Defendant.

A person shall be appointed.

B) The above points do not reflect to which extent the Plaintiff had made reasonable efforts to implement. Accordingly, Article 71-2 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act provides that the disposition may be mitigated by taking into account the motive, content, degree of violation, etc. of Article 71-2 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, and the same cannot be assessed in cases where the Plaintiff refused to implement the disposition request and where the implementation was not completed even though it made efforts to implement the disposition. Thus, when determining the level of punishment, the Defendant should take into account various circumstances that are not reflected in the above

C) In the case of the matters No. 4, the Plaintiff sought measures to utilize the Ruri land as a sculp, and filed a report with the Defendant, and the Defendant also accepted the said report prior to the instant disposition. Although the commencement of the procedure for the sale of Ruri land was somewhat delayed and the Defendant did not reach the actual sale prior to the instant disposition, there are circumstances to consider that the Plaintiff’s intention to protect fundamental property for education does not fully waive the measures to utilize Rri land for education, and that the sale procedure was delayed. In light of the fact that Rri land was sold after the instant disposition, the Plaintiff does not seem to have formally implemented the aforementioned procedure without the intention to sell it.

D) In the case of the items No. 21 annually, the Plaintiff tried to complete an inventory inspection requested by the Defendant on the grounds of the nonperformance and to approve the financial statements for the fiscal year 2016 that reflects the result of the inventory inspection at the board of directors on April 2017. However, the Plaintiff’s explanation that it was not reflected in the financial statements for the fiscal year 2016 as a result of the comparison with the relevant provisions that require separate approval from the board of directors prior to the above board of directors. As such, it appears that there was no other reason not to implement an inventory inspection even though the Plaintiff completed the inventory inspection and reported that it would be reflected in the financial statements by the Defendant on March 2017. In fact, in light of the fact that the results of the inventory inspection were reflected in the financial statements for the fiscal year 2017, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have failed

E) The instant disposition is one of the most severe dispositions stipulated under Article 60 of the Higher Education Act, and is continuously and continuously subject to the amendment of school regulations and reduction of the fixed number of admission, and thus, is highly likely to be disadvantageous in comparison with the disposition of a fixed number of students that temporarily rejected an increase in the fixed number of admission or the disposition of a suspension of recruitment that restricts the recruitment of students. Furthermore, the Plaintiff already received a prior disposition that reduces the fixed number of new students in 2017 (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap82355, Seoul High Court Decision 2018Du42827). Therefore, the instant disposition was finalized as against the Plaintiff on September 14, 2018 (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap82355, Seoul High Court Decision 2018Du42827). If the number of admission

F) The instant disposition is intended to ensure the financial soundness of private schools, to enhance the quality of school education and educational environment, to protect the public nature of private school education, and to promote sound development. However, the Plaintiff implemented a large portion of the matters originally requested by the Defendant, and some of the matters the Plaintiff had already completed were confirmed to be illegal in the relevant lawsuit. As to the administrative measure, which accounts for the largest portion of the sanction points, among the non-performance of the instant case, the Plaintiff made considerable efforts to implement the administrative measure, and the instant disposition was conducted under the determination that the initial sanction point was 204 points, and the actual sanction point was merely 115.2 points, it is difficult to deem that there is a need to take the instant disposition, which is the most strong sanction, as it appears the most powerful sanction to achieve the instant disposition only by the suspension of recruitment at a level lower than the instant disposition.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Young-soo

Judges Kim Gin-han

2) Of a total of 4,6,17, and 21 notifications, 1 total of 4 items per annum and 5 items to be improved per annum.

3) Of the matters described above, KRW 211,369,00 per annum, KRW 51,60,000 related to the corrective (retribut) items in relation to the corrective (retribut) items in the annual 14 items, KRW 1,390,000 related to the corrective (retribut) items in the annual 22 items, KRW 300,000 related to the corrective (retribut) items in the annual 23 items, KRW 177,083,000 related to the corrective (retribut) items in the annual 24 items, and KRW 109,762,00 related to the corrective (retribut) items in the annual 25 items.

(iv) 8 minor disciplinary actions, among the matters of heavy disciplinary action No. 24, No. 9,24,25 annually, 43 cases totaled by 34 warning among the matters of minor disciplinary action, No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 14, 15, 21, 22 and 23

5) 2 cases in total, each of the items 4,21 annually notified.

6) Of the 14 items per annum, KRW 51,600,000 in relation to the corrective (retriate) items, KRW 300,000 in relation to the corrective (retriate) items and KRW 172,916,00 in relation to the corrective (retriate) items in the annual 23 items, and KRW 524,516,00 in relation to the corrective (retriate) items in the annual 24 items.

7) There are 24 serious disciplinary actions, 9, 24, and 25 annually, 8 minor disciplinary actions, 10 warnings and 2 minor disciplinary actions in each year, 10 warnings and 2 minor disciplinary actions in each case.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.