학칙개정처분무효확인등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following is added to the court of first instance, according to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. As to the addition, the Plaintiffs asserted that Article 19-2 of the Higher Education Act (hereinafter “6”) established the board of trustees system in order to check the exercise of president’s authority and guarantee transparency and democracy, and that the legislative intent of Article 19-2 of the Higher Education Act should be terminated if the board of trustees cannot be seen as a final deliberation body for the enactment or amendment of school regulations.
Article 19-2 of the former Higher Education Act (amended by Act No. 15038, Nov. 28, 2017) provides that the university council shall establish a university council and shall deliberate and consult on important matters concerning the operation and education of the university with teachers and staff and students as members of the council, thereby gathering diverse opinions from the members of the university to check the school administration of the president in order to enhance democracy in decision-making. However, due to such legislative purpose, the above provision does not require the board of trustees to act as a final deliberative body with regard to important matters among matters falling within the scope of university autonomy. However, the above provision does not provide that the board of trustees shall act as a final deliberative body with regard to the matters falling under the scope of university autonomy. The above provision does not provide that the board of trustees shall determine the board of directors as a final deliberative body, and it is deemed that the above legislative purpose can be achieved by exercising the right of deliberation or consultation with other deliberative body, etc. as well as other deliberative body. Therefore, the above argument by the Plaintiffs is difficult to accept.
A person shall be appointed.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit.