2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On August 10, 2009, the Plaintiff established and operated a private teaching institute for nursing and supporting technology education in the trade name of “B Nursing Institute” (hereinafter “the instant private teaching institute”).

B. On September 5, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval with the President of the Korea Institute of Vocational Ability Development who was entrusted with the task of reviewing the courses by the Defendant (a system that 80% of the tuition fees for students at the Institute of Vocational Skills Development). However, on January 16, 2012, the President of the Korea Institute of Vocational Skills Development issued a non-approval disposition (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for approval was the main training equipment necessary to achieve the training goal, i.e., injection training type IV, and IM deficiencies, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result.

C. On March 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection by supplementing the data, but the president of the Korea Vocational Skills Development Institute again rendered a disposition of non-approval on the grounds that the injection practice model and human body model cannot be mixed and possessed respectively. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of filing an objection in accordance with the relevant statutes.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 2-1, 2, 3-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 3-1, 2, and 6-1, 2, and 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In the case of the instant driving school, even though the Defendant did not have separate human body models IV and IM as presented by the Defendant on the grounds of non-approval, it was equipped with the improved equipment including all of the above model functions, and thus, the instant disposition on the grounds that the above human body models IV and IM were not provided separately (hereinafter referred to as “the first chapter”).

2) Even if the equipment pointing out by the Defendant was insufficient, the Defendant did not undergo such procedures even though it had been given an opportunity to require or supplement such equipment in advance, and did not unilaterally approve the equipment without any notice even after the application was filed, and thus, the instant disposition was procedurally erroneous (hereinafter referred to as “section 2”).

3) In addition, the reason for the lack of equipment presented by the Defendant is not a serious defect to the extent that a non-approval disposition is made, and the reason for the disposition of this case and the disposition of this case are too harsh to the Plaintiff when considering the damages and losses suffered by the Plaintiff, so the disposition of this case is in violation of laws that deviate from and abused discretion (hereinafter referred to as the "section 3").

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The summary of the training course among the data submitted by the Plaintiff to the President of the Korea Vocational Skills Development Institute, stating that the Plaintiff has one human body model (N.O. 01404) for injection practice and one first half of a human body model (B09) using the training equipment of the instant Institute.

2) A human body model owned by the Plaintiff for injection practice (hereinafter referred to as “the human body model of this case”) is a model of telegraph, as follows, so that he/she can be able to be refined in the part of his/her body, and be able to be trained in the part of his/her her tunch as part.

A person shall be appointed.

3) The injection practice model IV and IM presented by the Defendant as the instant disposition are constituted as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

4) According to the documents “examination of training courses suitable for the vocational skills development account system in 201” in the list of the materials for the briefing session prepared by the Defendant and the President of the Korea Vocational Skills Development Institute, the examination of the training courses in 2011 is judged inappropriate when at least one of four items, other than training expenses, is below the minimum standard, but the quantitative standard among the detailed criteria for the examination is to be disclosed in principle, and the quantitative standard of the standard for the examination is to be made public, and the fixed sexual standard required for the determination of the expert is to be provided. Accordingly, the minimum size standard of the facilities and equipment among the items for the examination is to be disclosed, but the guidelines were to be provided for the minimum size of practical training rooms by job type and equipment.

5) In addition, according to the major reorganization of the examination in 2011, it presents in 2011 the criteria for determining whether the training equipment satisfies the requirements for application by item while disclosing the minimum size and essential equipment per trainee per training facility (a lecture room, a training room, etc.) and the minimum size of each training facility (a training room, a training room, etc.). According to the above criteria, the following critical matters and the review experience in 2010 should be referred to:

At the time of entry of training facilities equipment, the key issue is that the final determination of whether the training institution meets the training facilities and equipment that is not the criteria for the examination is a significant matter prepared to refer to setting the level of training facilities and equipment for each training course when applying for the examination of training courses. The final determination of whether the training facilities and equipment are appropriate for each training course is not the criteria for the examination must be recorded in detail, and the training equipment necessary for the training results should be attached to all the internal photographs of the training room, including individual photographs and practical equipment for the training equipment stated.* The examiner must attach photographs of the lecture room or practice room equipped with the equipment necessary for the training process so that it can be confirmed.

6) According to the documents attached to the above data collection, even if the quantity and model name of the training equipment coincide with the results of the on-site inspection, it is stated that “in case it is deemed that the pertinent training equipment is not related to the training course applied for in the examination of appropriateness” can be treated.

7) According to the detailed review criteria for the field of the training of a nursing assistant prepared in accordance with the Regulations on the Implementation of the Vocational Skills Development Account System (Notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 201-5), it shall be determined as “unsatisfy” if the equipment required for the training is omitted or not equipped with on-site inspection. The essential equipment shall be provided separately with a human body model, a human body model IV for injection practice, and a human body model IM for injection practice, respectively, so that practical training using each equipment may be conducted at the same time. However, the standard for the examination was not disclosed at the time when the Plaintiff applied for the approval of a private teaching institute with the President of the Korea Institute for Vocational Skills Development on September 5

8) Furthermore, the fact that an application for the pertinent training course can be computerized only within the training application period and that additional applications and revisions are impossible after the application period expires was disclosed through the training institution’s presentation data collection in advance.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, 5-4, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 7, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination as to the first proposal

A) In an appeal litigation, the burden of proof of the legality of the pertinent disposition is, in principle, against the agency asserting the legality of the disposition. However, in cases where the agency proves that it is reasonable and acceptable to the extent of the lawfulness of the pertinent disposition alleged by the agency, the disposition is justifiable, and the assertion and proof of exceptional circumstances contrary thereto are returned to the other party’s responsibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du27639, 27646, Jun. 18,

B) Based on the detailed examination criteria for the assistant nurse training field, the Defendant held that the human body model of this case did not meet the requirements of the aforementioned detailed examination criteria and rendered dispositions in this case on the ground that “human body model and human body model IV for injection practice, and human body model IM for injection practice separately shall be prepared, respectively,.” According to the aforementioned evidence, the aforementioned detailed examination criteria separately provided human body model IV for injection practice, human body model IM for injection practice, and the purport of the aforementioned detailed examination criteria separately provided for injection practice is the model used for vaccination, and it is reasonable to view that it is reasonable to view that the above detailed examination criteria have the same function as that of human body type IV for injection practice, and that it can reasonably be seen that the above detailed examination criteria have the same function as that of human body type IV for injection practice. In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the above detailed examination criteria have the same function as that of human body type, and that the defendant can reasonably be seen that the above detailed examination criteria have the same function as that of education for injection practice.

C) Therefore, the instant human body model includes both the function of the human body model IV for injection practice and the human body model IM for injection practice, and the circumstance that the instant human body model is a teaching material suitable for the content and purpose of the assistant nurse education should be proved by the Plaintiff.

D) However, in the case of the instant human body model, the parts of the body are affixed with her arms and her tamp with the shape of the human body, but the shape of the above human body model and other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to deem that it is possible to conduct injection training according to the type of blood in the beer part in addition to the practice of sticking an article on a certain part in a body model. Moreover, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant human body model is an improved device including the function of the human body model IV for injection practice and IM for injection practice, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise on Chapter 2).

A) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following circumstances are revealed.

(1) The approval system for private teaching institutes with the account system is to support the State's autonomous vocational skills development.

Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is able to exercise broad discretion as to whether to approve the case, since the contents of the practice in this case are directly connected to the health of the people, so it is necessary to make judgment from an expert perspective so that proper practical training can be conducted.

② In principle, the Defendant indicated that the quantitative standards for the examination of a private teaching institute shall be open to the public among the detailed standards for the examination of the training institute at the briefing session, and that the fixed standards for the examination of the expert shall be provided to the 'D'. Accordingly, the minimum size of the facilities and equipment among the examination items shall be disclosed, and the guidelines for the minimum size of the practice room by occupation shall be provided to the 'D'. As seen earlier, considering the nature of the approval system of the private teaching institute for each type of occupation and the need for strict examination, it is not necessary for the Defendant to uniformly present the list of individual equipment in accordance with the detailed standards for the examination, and it seems sufficient to present the outline of the guidelines for the equipment to be prepared at the time of application. ③ Even if the number of training facilities and equipment are determined through the examination of the committee for examination of training courses for the private teaching institute, the Defendant appears to have known that the standards for the operation of the 20th anniversary of the initial standards for the examination of the suitability of the training institute, including the 20th new standards for the training model.

6. The defendant knew in advance that the application for the pertinent training course can be computerized only within the training application period, and that additional applications and revisions are impossible after the application period expires.

B) In full view of the above circumstances, even if the Defendant’s detailed examination criteria, which requested the Plaintiff to separately possess the human body model IV and the human body model IM for injection practice at the time of the instant disposition, have not been disclosed, the Defendant, as seen earlier, provided a level of examination criteria necessary to recognize the importance of practical training equipment, including whether a high level of educational conditions have been provided for teaching training institutes for teaching instruction IV and human body model IM for teaching instruction. Therefore, even if the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff of the necessity of the aforementioned separate equipment in advance or give an opportunity to supplement it, the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful. In addition, in light of the circumstances that the Plaintiff applied for approval on September 5, 201 and then on January 16, 2012, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant unilaterally issued an approval without any notification from the Plaintiff.

3) Determination as to the third proposal

In full view of the purport of the account-based private teaching institute system and the assistant nurse’s services are directly connected to the lives of the people and need to be trained through appropriate equipment, and the detailed examination criteria are required to separately possess human body models IV and human body models for injection practice, etc., even though the Plaintiff could not operate the account-based private teaching institute by the instant disposition and may incur losses to a certain extent. However, it is difficult to deem the instant disposition to be more serious than the public interest achieved by the instant disposition because it is too harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition constitutes a case of deviation or abuse of discretionary authority in violation of the proportionality.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Young-man

Judge Lee Jin-hun