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

3. The Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff on July 4, 2012, ① a disposition on consignment and recognition six months (from July 5, 2012 to January 4, 2013) for the entire course of a vocational technical school; ② a disposition on consignment and recognition restriction on training courses at a vocational technical school for more than six months (from July 5, 2012 to July 4, 2013), ③ a disposition on consignment and recognition restriction on training courses at a vocational technical school for more than six months (from July 5, 2012 to July 4, 2013), ③ a disposition on more than 137,230 won out of an order on return of KRW 7,59,450, and a disposition on revocation of designation of a vocational skill development training establishment shall cease to have effect until this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff on July 4, 2012: ① Disposition on six months (from July 5, 2012 to January 4, 2013) restriction on entrustment and recognition of the entire course of a vocational technical school; ② Disposition on one year (from July 5, 2012 to July 4, 2013) restriction on entrustment and recognition of natural ecosystem restoration training courses at a vocational technical school; ③ Order to return the illegally received amount of KRW 7,59,450 and additional collection and disposition on the same amount; ④ Revocation of designation of a vocational skill development training establishment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as follows: “The amount should be limited to the above amount” under Section 3 of Chapter 9 of the first instance judgment; and, in addition, “(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du7564, Jun. 13, 2013)” is the same as the written judgment of the first instance court; therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Suspension of validity;

According to the records of this case, since it is recognized that urgent measures are required to prevent irrecoverable damage to the plaintiff due to each disposition listed in paragraph (3) of this case, and there is no other evidence that the suspension of validity may seriously affect public welfare due to the suspension of validity, each disposition listed in paragraph (3) of this case shall suspend its effect ex officio until this judgment becomes final

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-young

Judges Lee Jae-won