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

A. Status of the party

The plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates A University, and the defendant is a person with the authority to authorize the establishment, etc. of a professional law school under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Law Schools (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") enforced from September 28, 2007.

(b) Process of implementing the professional law school system;

(1) In order to provide high-quality legal services in response to the various expectations and requests of the people, the Judicial Reform Promotion Committee, which is an advisory organization of the President, has been engaged in preparation for the introduction of a professional law school system with the aim of training legal professionals with knowledge and ability to resolve legal disputes professionally and efficiently based on professional ethics and values, and prepared a draft of the law on May 16, 2005.

(2) Based on the draft prepared by the Judicial Reforming Promotion Committee, the Defendant submitted the draft to the National Assembly on October 2005 after consultation with the relevant ministries and the process of gathering opinions from the academic world. The draft was decided on July 3, 2007 by the National Assembly and enforced on September 28, 2007.

(3) The defendant conducted two research service projects from around 2005 to 2006 in order to establish a professional law school, held a council of experts on four occasions to prepare a review and evaluation index for authorization to establish a professional law school. From August 8, 2007 to October 2007, the Minister of Court Administration, the Minister of Justice, the President of Korean Bar Association, and the President of Korean Law School.

(4) On October 5, 2007, the Defendant organized the Law School Education Committee to deliberate on matters concerning authorization for the establishment of a professional law school pursuant to Articles 10 and 11 of the Act, and commissioned 13 members, including 00,000, 000, and 000.

(c) Public announcement of application for authorization for establishment of professional law schools;

(1) On October 30, 2007, after deliberation by the Law School Education Committee, the Defendant publicly announced an application for authorization to establish a professional law school by the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development No. 2007-120, and the main contents are as follows:

4. Total admission quota;

○ Even in 2009, the total number of admission at a professional law school is 2,00 and 00.

5. Method of selection;

○ The purpose of training excellent legal professionals is to select them in consideration of regional balance.

○ The whole country is set up as five zones for each district under the jurisdiction of the high court and outstanding universities are located within each region.

A school with authorization for the establishment of a professional law school shall be selected.

○ Even when the university is authorized to be established within each region, balance among regions may be considered, but it is inappropriate as a result of the examination.

A person shall be appointed.

shall not be selected if it is determined.

○ Law School (including the fixed number of admission of each graduate school) shall be deliberated by the Law School Education Committee.

shall be authorized by the Minister.

6. Review and evaluation;

○ Evaluation shall be conducted according to the standards for examination of authorization for the establishment of professional law schools prepared after deliberation by the Law School Education Committee.

7. Announcement of a selected university;

○ Preliminary Authorization (Notice of Results of Examination of Establishment Plan): Flag on January 2008

○ Doz. : around September 2008

(2) On October 30, 2007, the Defendant announced the examination criteria for authorization of the establishment of a professional law school (hereinafter referred to as the “examination criteria of this case”) while introducing the preliminary authorization system and announced that only the universities which obtained preliminary authorization on January 1, 2008 should make an investment planned in teachers, facilities, etc. The examination criteria of this case consists of nine areas, such as education objectives, admission screening, curriculum, teachers, students, students, schools, schools, education, finance, related degree courses, university competitiveness, social responsibility, etc., 66 items, and 132 items, and the status of points assigned to each area are as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

* Plan: 61.1%, performance: 30.9%, and plan performance: 8.0%

(d) Application for authorization to establish a professional law school;

On November 30, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for authorization of the establishment of a professional law school with the admission quota of 80 persons, and 24 universities, including A.I. established and operated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in Seoul Special Area (Seoul, Gyeonggi, Incheon, and Gangwonwon), applied for authorization for establishment (in the middle region, the Plaintiff, B, and C filed an application for authorization for establishment). 17 universities applied for authorization for establishment in the region ( Daejeon, Gwangju, Daegu, and Busan).

(e) Criteria for allocating admission quota to professional law schools;

(1) On December 14, 2007, the Defendant: (a) comprehensively takes into account regional conditions, such as population number, total number of students in the region, number of cases, etc. with respect to the admission quota at the law school; and (b) balanced securing of discharge of legal professionals, etc., the distribution ratio may be adjusted within the range of 【5%; (c) the distribution ratio may be adjusted within the scope of 【5%; (d) the results of the investigation by the Law School Education Committee from December 12, 2007 to January 2008 after receiving the results of the examination (written examination and on-site examination) and the preliminary authorization for the establishment of the law school on January 2008; and (d) confirmed the status of the application for the establishment of the law school on September 2008.

(2) The Law School Education Committee conducted a documentary examination and on-site investigation in accordance with the examination criteria of this case, and on January 28, 2008, the distribution ratio of the fixed number of admission in Seoul Special Area was 57%, and the distribution ratio of the fixed number of admission in the local area was 43%.

(f) Selection, etc. of preliminary law schools;

(1) The Law School Education Committee conducted an evaluation of the university's application for authorization to be established in accordance with the instant review criteria and gave points to the university. The points and order of priority of the universities in the Seoul metropolitan area and the Gyeonggi-do area are as shown in the previous sheet.

[Seoul District]

A person shall be appointed.

【Game Area】

A person shall be appointed.

(2) According to the deliberation of the Law School Education Committee on February 4, 2008, the Defendant selected 25 universities listed in the attached list 15 universities in Seoul Special Zone (1 to 15 universities listed in the attached list), 10 regional universities (attached Form 16 to 25), and 25 universities listed in the attached list, including 16 to 10 regional universities (attached Table 16 to 25), and determined that the selected universities were selected as preliminary universities, and that they were found to have been selected as preliminary universities, and that the application for authorization of establishment based on the fixed number of admission by universities and colleges, and ① the application for authorization of establishment based on the fixed number of admission, ② the abolition of a law school and special school related to law, ③ notification of the following measures, such as the reduction of the fixed number of students equivalent to the fixed number of admission by law school, and implementation of on-site surveys, such as subsequent measures and securing of teaching staff, and notification of the scheduled implementation plan and measures to be taken.

(3) On February 15, 2008, the Defendant disclosed the determination of the fixed number of admission by region, preliminary authorization, the principle of selecting universities and colleges, the principle and result of the determination of the fixed number of admission by university and college. Among them, the principle and result of the determination of the fixed number of admission by university and college in Seoul region are as follows.

○ Allocation Principles

- combine universities, on the basis of their scores obtained by individual universities, belonging to certain rankings as groups and assign the prescribed number for each group;

- Gyeonggi, Incheon, and Gangwon shall preferentially assign in consideration of balanced regional development within the region.

○ Order and Results of allocation

(1) Where at least 10 persons are allocated: It may create a new model for training of legal professionals with education capability and competitiveness.

the number of personnel in excess of a certain size shall be allocated, but differentiated according to the evaluation score;

· 150 persons assigned to universities (Seoul), which account for at least 30 higher points than those of the second university;

· Assignment of 120 persons, respectively, to three universities of the second group (households, gender fruptures, and consideration units), with at least 890 points, respectively.

· Assignment of 100 persons, respectively, to 3 universities of the third group before and after the 880-points (the first group, the second group, the second group),

(2) When allocated at a balanced regional development level: Gyeonggi-do C (the highest point among the Seoul metropolitan area 13 and the Gyeonggi-do applicant universities and colleges shall be located.

(E) double the number of 50, 50, and 40 persons, respectively, in Incheon City D (No. 15th in Seoul metropolitan area) and Gangwon-do E (No. 19th in Seoul metropolitan area), respectively.

(3) Where less than 10 persons are allocated: Neighborhood points (the distribution of less than 11.3 points in total by six universities or colleges among 1,000 points).

Ro 860 Overpopulated distribution

- 290 persons in Seoul region are somewhat different depending on their grades, and 60 persons in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Central District, and Korea Special Metropolitan City;

50 persons, each of whom shall be assigned to 50 persons, each of whom shall be assigned to 40 persons, each of whom

(4) Where no selection is made: Among selective universities located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the scores between the scores at the lowest and the scores at the next highest university.

There is a difference of 22 or more points, and there is a difference of 33 points between the next-order university and the next-order university, excluding from the selection.

(g) Notification, etc. of authorization for establishment of professional law schools;

On August 29, 2008, according to the results of an on-site investigation and a review by the Law School Education Committee, the Defendant selected 25 universities listed in the attached list, including 15 universities in Seoul metropolitan area, 10 local universities, as universities with the establishment of a professional law school, and confirmed the fixed number of admission by each university (50 students of the fixed number of admission in Gyeonggi Gyeonggi region), in Incheon region, D (50 students of the fixed number of admission), and E (40 students of the fixed number of admission), and notified the relevant university on September 2, 2008, along with follow-up measures, such as admission screening, teachers, relevant academic degrees, administrative matters, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant dispositions”).

[Ground of recognition] The written evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 13, 15, and Eul Nos. 1 through 7 (including Serials) and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s respective dispositions of this case are unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Article 7(1) of the Act (Rules on Restriction on Total Number of Enrollments)

Article 7 (1) of the Act provides that the defendant shall set the total number of admission at a law school, and accordingly, the defendant set the total number of admission at a law school in 2009 as 2,00, and refused to grant authorization for the establishment of a law school with respect to the plaintiff under the restriction on the total number of admission quota. Article 7 (1) of the Act, which is the basis of the disposition of this case, violates the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution by limiting the total number of admission at a law school, thereby excessively infringing the autonomy of a university with respect to the establishment of a law school at a law school, thereby violating Articles 31 (4) and 37 (2) of the Constitution.

(2) unconstitutionality and illegality of Article 5 (Provisions for Balance Consideration among Regions) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act

Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the defendant shall take into account inter-regional balance in granting authorization for the establishment of a professional law school. Accordingly, the defendant divided the whole country into Seoul and regional zones, allocated only 57% of the fixed number of admission to Seoul zones, and distributed 43% of the remaining 43% to local zones. As a result, the plaintiff in Seoul region could have obtained authorization for establishment of a professional law school if it had been conducted nationwide, but it could not obtain authorization for establishment as a result of an examination conducted by the unit of Seoul region. Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which is the basis of the disposition in this case, stipulates that Article 75 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, etc. provides that the principle of authorization for the establishment of a professional law school shall be considered as a factor of the measure of authorization for establishment of a professional law school without delegation

(3) The organization of the Law School Education Committee is unlawful.

Article 13 of the Act provides that a member of the Law School Education Committee shall not participate in the relevant deliberation if he/she serves as a professor at a university subject to deliberation. In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant violated the principle of due process under the Constitution and Article 13 of the Act by commissioning 000,000,000 professors working as a professor at a university which filed an application for authorization of establishment of a law school as a member of the Law School Education Committee and allowing them to participate in the deliberation on the detailed criteria for authorization of establishment and the decision on the admission quota of each university and each individual university

(4) Illegal establishment of review criteria, etc.

The plaintiff was prepared to obtain authorization for the establishment of a professional law school on the basis of the original review guidelines prepared by the Korea Science Promotion Foundation and the defendant's review guidelines published around September 2007. The defendant published the review guidelines of this case on October 30, 2007 and did not include the draft review guidelines of the Korea Science Promotion Foundation or the defendant's review guidelines published around September 2007, the average number of successful applicants (15 points) over the last five years, and (10 points) the number of successful applicants (10 points) who passed the law-related books in the planning evaluation for the last five years, and subsequently changed the number of successful applicants in the law-related books in the planning evaluation as subjects of performance evaluation. After the change of the number of successful applicants in the evaluation guidelines of this case, the new or modified evaluation guidelines of the plaintiff based on the above evaluation criteria violates the principle of trust and trust, and the changed evaluation methods of the plaintiff during the last five years period of law-related professional law schools compared with the new evaluation methods.

(5) Unfair review and assessment content

When the Law School Education Committee examines and evaluates the application for authorization to establish a law school, it conducted an unfair evaluation on the national university and female university by arbitrarily evaluating it, and the defendant issued this case based on such unfair evaluation results by the Law School Education Committee.

(6) Violation of the duty of balanced consideration among regions

The defendant announced the public notice of application for authorization for the establishment of professional law schools in order to secure the balance between regions in the line of authorization for the establishment of professional law schools by dividing the whole country into five regions, including Seoul zone, and the method of selecting a family university which is established in consideration of the balance among regions. The defendant did not properly perform the duty of balanced consideration in selecting a school for the establishment of professional law schools by selecting only one university (50 persons with fixed number of admission) within the Gyeonggi region as an authorized university for the establishment of professional law schools and excluding the plaintiff from the selection.

(7) Violation of the method of selecting authorized universities and allocating individual admission quota

Although the defendant should assign the individual admission quota to the university which received the authorization after deciding whether to grant the authorization of the establishment of the law school, the defendant did not individually examine whether the application for authorization of the establishment of the law school meets the requirements for the authorization of the establishment of the university, and did not obtain the authorization of the establishment of the university which meets the requirements for the authorization of the establishment of the university by determining the selection of the university and the admission quota for each university.

(8) Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act

Before rendering a disposition to refuse the establishment of a professional law school against the plaintiff, the defendant should have gone through the procedure of notifying the facts and legal basis in advance pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, but did not go through the procedure.

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

(c) Facts of recognition;

(1) Reporting, etc. of grounds for exclusion of legal professors

(A) On December 2007, some professors, who are law professors of the Law School Education Committee, reported the reasons for exclusion of their universities in their service, and subsequently did not participate in the deliberation and evaluation of the total of 41 universities in which they belong in the examination and evaluation of the total of 41 universities in which they applied for authorization to establish a law school.

(B) The chairman of the Law School Education Committee, 000 served as a member of the Judicial Reform Promotion Committee, and one man has served as a member of the Committee on the Judicial Reforming Promotion, who is a non-governmental organization, engaged in activities related to the introduction of a law school and served as a member of the Committee on the Judicial Reform Promotion, 000 served as a member of the Committee on the Judicial Reform Promotion, and 000 served as an expert member of the Audit of the Law School Council and the Judicial Reform Promotion Committee.

(2) Research, gathering of opinions, deliberation process, etc. related to the examination criteria for authorization of establishment of professional law schools

(A) The Defendant requested two research services with respect to the establishment of professional law schools. Among them, the first research service was conducted by 00 professors and eight other professors of Seoul University from May 5, 2005 to December 2, 2005, and the first research report (hereinafter “the first research report”) was submitted, and the second research service was conducted from December 2005 to May 2006 by Korea Science Promotion (YOOOOO) and submitted the second research report (hereinafter “the second research report”).

The first research report states the alternatives, opinions, etc. presented in the research is not the official opinion of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, but the opinion of the researcher, and the second research report states that it does not have any binding power or normative power as materials for deliberation that can be used by the Law School Education Committee.

(B) The defendant shall send the second research report to the Minister of Court Administration, the Minister of Justice, the President of Korean Bar Association, and the President of Korean Law School from August 8, 2007 to September 2007 and shall review the establishment of a professional law school.

It has gathered opinions on the quasi-level and evaluation indices.

(C) The Law School Education Committee held a meeting 15 times from October 5, 2007 to January 26, 2008, and deliberated on the authorization criteria for establishment of a law school, the selection of each university by region, and the allocation of quotas. The major results of deliberation are as follows.

① At the third meeting on October 16, 2007, there was a broad range of discussions about the allocation of evaluation area and detailed evaluation items and the content of each item, but there was an opinion on the degree of opening and operating a foreign language course, the ratio of female professors, the competitiveness of universities and the evaluation of social accountability, and the opinion that the criteria for examination should include educational capabilities of universities and the emission of successful applicants for the judicial examination.

② On October 18, 2007, at the fourth meeting, the number of successful applicants for the judicial examination was adopted as a new evaluation index, but it was discussed to reflect it within the limit of 30 points. The detailed review on the criteria for authorization of establishment was decided to organize a subcommittee and discuss the committee as four members of the Law School Education Committee. On the evaluation evaluation zone, the five divided bills were presented under the jurisdiction of the high court and most of the members were supported by the committee. At the same time, the education ability of the law school and balanced regional development should be considered, but at the same time, the opinion was presented that the education ability of the law school should be given priority to the training of outstanding legal professionals.

③ At the fifth meeting of October 25, 2007, the results of the so-called revolving session from October 22, 2007 to October 23, 2007 were reflected, and the results of the examination were determined to include the number of successful examinees in each school and the ratio of successful examinees in comparison with graduates from the law, among the criteria for examination.

④ At the seventh meeting of October 29, 2007, the basic direction for selecting each professional law school was determined.

⑤ At the 8th meeting of November 6, 2007, the 9th meeting of November 15, 2007, and the 10th meeting of November 22, 2007, the deliberation was conducted on the examination plan for authorization of the establishment of professional law schools, such as documentary examination, field investigation, etc.

④ On December 13, 2007, the 13th session set the principle of allocating the fixed number of admission to the effect that it can be adjusted within the range of 【5% per each region according to the result of the examination of installation authorization, by comprehensively taking into account regional conditions such as population number, quantity of production in the region, number of cases, etc., and balanced securing of legal professionals' discharge.

7) At the 15th meeting from January 26, 2008 to January 28, 2008, the distribution ratio of the fixed number of admission in the Seoul metropolitan area and local area was determined at 57% and 43%, and preliminary authorization universities and colleges established by region were determined to set the fixed number of admission in each university and college.

8. At the 23rd conference on August 25, 2008, the universities with preliminary authorization were selected as the universities with final authorization as it is, and the number of admission quota by the universities at the original level was determined as it is.

(3) Criteria for the examination of this case

(A) As to the record of discharge by legal professionals

① The Defendant, based on the student evaluation field (125 scores) of the instant review criteria, included the number of successful applicants (15 scores out of 15 scores) who passed the judicial examination for the last five years, and the number of successful applicants (10 scores out of 10 scores) who passed the law course for the last five years.

② The first research report needs to include not only external and objective educational conditions, but also educational ability appearing as a result of education in order to evaluate the educational ability of the university. One of the indexes can be the result of such education, so there is an opinion that it is necessary to consider the performance of legal professionals as a standard for granting authorization to professional law schools or for determining individual admission quota.

(B) Related to legal-related books

The defendant set a list of items to be assessed (45 points out of 102, planning, and performance evaluation) of the law-related books in the area of evaluation of educational facilities of this case (102 points), and included the number of items to be secured by a library specialized in law (50,00 points at least 15 points at least 10,000, performance evaluation) and the number of items to be revised by the law-related books (5 points at least 50 points at the time of securing at least 50 kinds, performance evaluation) in the detailed list.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 13, 15, 21 through 34 (including branch numbers for those with numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 10 (including branch numbers for those with numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether Article 7(1) of the Act is unconstitutional

The establishment and operation of a law school within a university by meeting certain establishment standards required by the Act can be deemed to be included in the presidential autonomy guaranteed by Article 31(4) of the Constitution. On the other hand, the autonomy of a university may be restricted pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution stipulating the general principle of statutory reservation of restriction on fundamental rights, which is a fundamental right by the Constitution attached to a university. The details of autonomy of a university are guaranteed by law. Furthermore, the State has been granted the comprehensive authority to organize, plan, operate, and supervise all school systems pursuant to Article 31(6) of the Constitution, i.e., the general authority to organize, operate, and supervise all school systems, and the State has been granted the comprehensive authority to organize, operate, and supervise the school system. However, insofar as the degree of regulation does not vary depending on the situation of the time and school at each level, and thus it does not infringe the nature of education, it can be deemed ultimately belonging to the legislative authority’s freedom to form (see Constitutional Court Order 2006Hun-Ga47, Apr. 27, 2007).

In this case, the main text of Article 7 (1) of the Act limits the self-interest of the university on the establishment and operation of a professional law school by allowing the defendant to determine the upper limit of the total admission quota of the professional law school within the scope of the establishment authorization and individual admission quota of the professional law school, and allowing the defendant to determine the establishment authorization of a professional law school and the establishment standards of a professional law school under the Act, such as teachers, facilities, curriculum, etc., to determine the number of the total admission quota determined by the defendant. Thus, the determination of the unconstitutionality of Article 7 (1) of the Act shall be based on whether the legislators exceeded a reasonable legislative limit under Article 37 (2) of the Constitution, or arbitrarily infringed on its essential substance in restricting the autonomy of the university as above.

However, in light of the fact that the number of professional groups in society needs to be properly adjusted in line with social needs, etc. from the perspective of social interest, and that the law school system is a system to train legal professionals with high level of expertise and role in society, and that it is reasonable to secure adequate number of excellent legal professionals in consideration of social demand for legal services, current status of existing legal professionals, conditions of training and education for legal professionals, etc., and to prevent the waste of human resources and expenses through efficient management of human resources at the general level is consistent with the interests of the whole society. In light of the fact that the main sentence of Article 7(1) of the Act provides that the law school shall set the total number of admitted students at the law school from the perspective of the whole society is to contribute to promoting the interest of the whole society by detecting adequate number of legal professionals from the perspective of the society and promoting efficient management of human resources within society, and thus, the legitimacy of its purpose is recognized.

In addition, in order to secure adequate number of legal professionals corresponding to social demand for legal services, etc., the upper limit of the total admission quota of professional law schools is set and appropriate to grant authorization for the establishment of professional law schools and to determine individual admission quota within the scope of the law school. With respect to schools which meet the standards for establishment of professional law schools without setting the total admission quota of professional law schools, schools which are equipped with the standards for establishment of professional law schools shall be in charge of legal professionals training without restriction and authorization for the establishment of professional law schools. However, in order to discharge the number of legal professionals prescribed by the method of adjusting the success rate at the examination stage of the lawyer qualification examination, the law school and specialized law schools are likely to cause the lack of education at the law school due to the fact that the introduction of the professional law school system might not be appropriate means for securing adequate number of legal professionals from the overall point of view of society and for accomplishing the purpose of securing efficient management of human resources. Thus, the main sentence of Article 7(1) of the law school has been a reasonable deviation from the legislative framework.

B. The essential part of the university’s autonomy cannot be deemed to have been infringed.

Therefore, the main text of Article 7(1) of the Act cannot be deemed to violate Article 31(4) and Article 37(2) of the Constitution, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (Provisions for balanced consideration among regions) is unconstitutional

Article 31 (1) of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have the right to receive equal education according to their abilities," Article 120 (2) of the Constitution provides that "the national land and resources shall be protected by the State, and the State shall establish a plan necessary for the balanced development and use thereof," and Article 122 provides that "the State shall impose necessary restrictions and duties in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the efficient and balanced utilization, development, and preservation of the land which is the basis of production and living of all citizens," and Article 1 of the Act provides that "the purpose of this Act is to train excellent legal professionals by providing for matters concerning the establishment, operation, education, etc. of professional law schools, and Article 2 provides that "The educational ideology of a school specialized in law" is to provide rich cultural services in compliance with the various expectations and requests of the people, and Article 122 provides that "the State shall have the special knowledge and ability to establish a professional law school in accordance with Article 6 (1) of the Act, which is able to resolve disputes with the aim of establishing and training the professional professional knowledge and ability in accordance with Article 6 (2).

In order to achieve the educational ideology under Article 2, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology shall determine the detailed standards necessary for the authorization of establishment of paragraph (1) as "the Minister of Education, Science and Technology". Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "the purpose of this Decree is to provide for matters delegated by the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Professional Law Schools and matters necessary for the enforcement thereof" and Article 5 provides that "the Minister of Education and Human Resources Ministry shall consider regional balance in order to train excellent human resources necessary for the development of local universities and regional development in relation to the authorization of establishment of professional law schools under Articles 5 and 6 of the Act."

In full view of the above provisions, Article 6(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides for the defendant to establish a "detailed standards necessary for establishment A" which achieves the educational ideology of Article 2 of the Act as an element to consider when authorizing the establishment of a law school. Article 5(2) of the Act provides for the defendant to establish a "detailed standards necessary for regional law schools". Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides for "based consideration among regions where the defendant must comply with the detailed standards necessary for authorization for establishment of a law school pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Act." Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides for the defendant to establish a "detailed standards necessary for regional development and regional development of law schools." Article 6(2) of the Act provides for the defendant with the above "detailed standards necessary for establishment of law schools" and Article 6(2) of the Act, which include the defendant's provision of education services to the defendant for balanced development of law schools, and Article 21(2) of the Act provides various educational ideology of regional law schools, which reflects the overall development of law schools.

Therefore, Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides the basis for Articles 2 and 6 of the Act, and it is clear to specify and clarify the factors to be considered in the authorization of the establishment of a law school to the extent that the provision is scheduled, and it is not a provision to change the factors to be considered in the authorization of the establishment of a law school which is not scheduled without the delegation of the Act to the public disadvantageously. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a provision of Article 75 of the Constitution or the law. Therefore, the plaintiff

(3) Whether the organization of the Law School Education Committee is unlawful

Articles 10 and 11 of the Act provide that the Law School Education Committee composed of 13 members shall be established in order to deliberate on matters relating to professional law schools, and four members from among 13 members shall be commissioned as law professors or associate professors. Meanwhile, Article 13 of the Act provides that the grounds for exclusion from participating in the deliberation shall not be allowed where a member himself/herself or his/her spouse is in office for a school foundation that establishes and operates a university or college subject to deliberation.

(1) Article 11(3)1 of the Act provides that four professors of law or associate professors of law shall be commissioned as members of the Law School Education Committee. Article 13 of the Act does not stipulate the grounds for exclusion of the members from participating in the relevant case where the members of the university, subject to deliberation, etc., serve as the members of the Law School Education Committee. (2) The defendant has already appointed members of the university, according to the notification of an application for authorization of the establishment of the law school, and constitutes the Law School Education Committee. It is difficult to expect that consideration should be given to the members of the university, who were commissioned as the members of the law school and whose term of office is guaranteed under the Acts and subordinate statutes, should be given to the members of the Law School Education Committee; (3) The purport of Article 11(3) of the Act is to ensure that the members of the university, which are the members of the law school, may not be commissioned as the members of the Law School Education Committee before the application for authorization of the establishment of the law school, and to exclude them from the application criteria for authorization of the law school and the establishment of the law school.

In light of the fact that it was involved from the introduction stage of the professional law school system such as its member or expert member, and that it was the person with experience in the professional law school system, ⑤ the above 00,00,00,000, and around December 2, 2007, he reported the reasons for exclusion of the university in which he is employed, and the fact that he did not participate in the evaluation (quality evaluation and appropriateness evaluation) of the university in which he is employed in the examination and evaluation of the 41 university in which he applied for the authorization of the establishment of the professional law school, the defendant commissioned the law professor as a member of the law school education committee and participated in the detailed criteria for the authorization of establishment, the significance and resolution of the trial on the determination of the university and the individual admission quota cannot be said to violate the due process under the Constitution or Article 13 of the Act, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(4) Whether establishment of review criteria, etc. is unlawful

As seen in the above facts, the research report submitted to the defendant by the Science Promotion Foundation, etc. with the research service on the criteria for the examination of establishment of a graduate school specializing in law in accordance with the defendant's financial support is an opinion or a policy proposal on the criteria for examination by the Science Promotion Foundation, etc.

Therefore, it is not binding or normative power, and there is no fact that the Defendant expressed the content of the research report as an official opinion. Thus, even if the Plaintiff trusted the research report prepared by the Science Promotion Foundation and prepared an application for authorization for the establishment of a professional law school accordingly, it cannot be said that such a trust of the Plaintiff is worth protecting.

In addition, among the examination criteria in this case, the average number of successful examinees in the judicial examination for the last five years and the number of successful examinees in the law school for the last five years should be considered as a major factor of the evaluation of the educational ability of the university which can train the so-called legal professional manpower, which is the legal professional training system, in view of the fact that the law school system should be considered as a major factor of the evaluation of the educational ability of the university, it seems to be consistent with the purpose of the law school system as one of the objective indices that can evaluate the legal professional training ability of the university. Even though the number of subjects of the law school among the examination criteria in this case were changed to those subject to the evaluation of the original plan subject to the evaluation of the evaluation criteria, even though there was no opportunity to prepare in accordance with the evaluation criteria, due to the nature of the examination and evaluation procedure, it cannot be said that it is improper for the plaintiff to be given an opportunity to prepare in accordance with the examination criteria. Therefore,

(5) Whether the content of the review and evaluation is unfair

With respect to the establishment of a professional law school, Articles 16 (School Teachers, etc.), 17 (Physical Standards), 18 (Degree Courses and Term of School Years), 19 (Credit), and 20 (Education Courses), and Article 6 (2) of the Act provides that the defendant shall set the detailed standards for establishment of a professional law school, and applying them to the procedures prescribed by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act, within the scope of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, shall be deemed to belong to the defendant's discretion, in view of the characteristics of high-level professional evaluation results conducted after deliberation by the Law School Education Committee. Thus, if the establishment of the detailed standards for evaluation and the establishment of the detailed standards for evaluation clearly violate the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, or significantly lacks the objective rationality or validity, it shall be deemed unlawful as an abuse or abuse of discretionary authority.

However, in examining and evaluating the application for authorization to establish a law school, there is no evidence to prove that the Law School Education Committee conducted a significant unfair evaluation on the national university and female university by arbitrary evaluation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(6) Whether there is a violation of the duty of balanced consideration among regions

As seen earlier, the ideology of the legal professional school system, which appears in Articles 1, 2, and 6 of the Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, can be deemed to include not only the training of excellent legal professionals, but also the provision of legal services meeting the diverse expectations and needs of the people at a nationwide level through the balanced consideration between regions in the authorization of the establishment of the law school. Thus, when authorizing the establishment of the law professional school, the defendant must make an objective and reasonable evaluation of the educational ability of universities that can guarantee the training of excellent legal professionals, but also take into account the balance between the Seoul metropolitan area and the local areas. Accordingly, the selection of the defendant's law school should be applied to the extent that it is properly harmonized with the principle of selecting universities with excellent educational ability and the principle of balanced consideration between regions.

In this case, as seen earlier, the defendant was selected by taking into account the principle of examination (the method of selecting the population of the university) with the view to fostering excellent legal professionals, and considering balanced regional conditions. ② It is possible to consider the balance between universities and colleges as well as the Seoul High Court's establishment of high schools within five regions. However, it is determined that the Seoul High Court's selection of new law schools within the Seoul High Court's five regions and the Seoul High Court's selection of new law schools within the Seoul High Court's five regions. However, the Seoul High Court's selection of new law schools could not be made if it is deemed inappropriate as a result of the examination. The Seoul High Court's selection of new law schools within the 13th session of December, 207 and the Seoul High Court's selection of new law schools within the Seoul High Court's total admission quota by taking into account all regional conditions such as population, production within the region, number of cases, and 48% of the Seoul High Court's selection of new law schools within the five percent of the Seoul High Court's allocation rate.

(7) Violation of the method of selecting authorized universities and allocating individual admission quota

In full view of the provisions of Articles 5, 6, and 7 of the Act, since there is a pre-determined number of admission at a law school, and there is a need to allocate minimum number of admission in terms of the operation of curriculum such as the establishment of various subjects and the securing of financial soundness for efficient operation at a law school, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s decision to establish a law school at a time and to determine the number of admission for each university at a school is unlawful, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(8) Whether the Administrative Procedures Act is in violation of

Article 21 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that in cases where an administrative agency imposes an obligation on the parties or imposes a restriction on their rights and interests, the administrative agency shall notify the parties concerned of the title of the disposition, name or address of the parties concerned, facts and legal grounds for the disposition, the grounds for the disposition, the contents of the disposition, the methods of handling the opinions, the name and address of the agency which submitted the opinions, and the deadline for submitting the opinions, etc. Where the disposition is not submitted, the parties concerned shall be notified of the submission of the opinion. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, the rejection disposition against the application does not directly restrict the rights and interests of the parties, and thus, it cannot be subject to prior notice of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du674, Nov. 28, 2003). Thus, the defendant's application for authorization to establish the law school is without merit under the premise that the defendant's application for authorization to establish the law school is "the intention of the parties concerned" under Article 21 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Full completion

Judge Park Sung-sung

-

i.

o

(10)

0

10.D

11.

30

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

[Constitution of the Republic of Korea]

Article 15

All citizens shall enjoy freedom to choose an occupation.

Article 31

(1) All citizens shall have the right to receive equal education according to their abilities.

(4) Educational independence, expertise, political neutrality, and autonomy of universities and colleges shall be guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by Act.

(6) Basic history concerning educational systems including school education and lifelong education, the operation thereof, educational finance and the status of school teachers.

subsection (1) shall be prescribed by an Act.

Article 37

(2) All freedom and rights of the people shall be limited to cases necessary for national security, the maintenance of order or public welfare.

It may be restricted by law, and even if it is restricted, the essential contents of freedom and rights shall not be infringed.

Article 120

(2) The national land and resources shall be protected by the State, and the State may prepare plans necessary for the balanced development and utilization thereof.

of this chapter.

Article 122

The State may impose necessary restrictions and duties on the efficient and balanced utilization, development and preservation of the national land, which is the basis of the production and living of all citizens, under the conditions as prescribed by the above-mentioned Act.

[Law on the Establishment and Operation of Law Schools]

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Act is to train excellent legal professionals by prescribing matters concerning the establishment, operation, education, etc. of professional law schools.

Article 2 (Educational Ideas)

The educational ideology of professional law schools is to train legal professionals with abundant culture, based on the deep understanding of human beings and society, and values aiming at freedom, equality, and justice, which provide high-quality legal services responding to the diverse expectations and requests of the people, and with knowledge and ability to solve professional and efficient legal disputes.

Article 5 (Authorization, etc. of Establishment)

(1) A person who establishes and operates a school which intends to have a professional law school shall be teaching staff or a Si under Articles 16 through 20.

It shall meet the requirements for establishment of professional law schools, such as theory and curriculum.

(2) Where a founder or operator of a public or private university intends to establish a professional law school, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology shall establish such school.

. It shall obtain authorization prescribed by Presidential Decree among the matters of closure or authorization of the authorized professional law school;

The same shall also apply to the modification of important matters.

(3) Where the Minister of Education, Science and Technology intends to grant authorization for establishment, closure or modification under paragraph (2), he/she shall do so in advance.

The Law School Education Committee under Article (hereinafter referred to as the "Law School Education Committee") shall undergo deliberation.

(4) The State intends to establish a professional law school, shall undergo deliberation by the Law School Education Committee.

The same shall also apply to cases where a driving school is closed or major matters prescribed by Presidential Decree are altered.

(5) Matters necessary for the procedures, etc. for authorization for establishment and closure and authorization for modification under paragraph (2) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 6 (Standards for Authorization for Establishment)

(1) Where the Minister of Education, Science and Technology applies for authorization for the establishment of a professional law school under Article 5 (2), he/she shall

The validity of educational goals and curricula to achieve the educational ideology under Article 2 and whether standards for establishment are satisfied, etc.

may be authorized by taking into account the subsection of this section.

(2) Detailed standards necessary for authorization of establishment under paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Minister of Education, Science and Technology.

Article 7 (Admissions at Law Schools)

(1) The Minister of Education, Science and Technology shall provide all circumstances, such as smooth provision of legal services to citizens and demand and supply of legal professionals.

In this case, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology shall determine the total number of admission.

The competent standing committee of the National Assembly shall report it.

(2) The Minister of Education, Science and Technology shall determine the total number of admission at a professional law school under paragraph (1).

A consultation with the Minister of Justice. In such cases, the President of the Korean Bar Association prescribed in Article 78 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Representative").

The President of the Korean Bar Association (hereinafter referred to as the "President of the Korean Bar Association"), Article 32 of the Civil Act, and Article 4 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Interest Corporations.

D. The President of the Korean Law School established with the permission of the Minister of Justice (hereinafter referred to as the "President of the Korean Law School").

) The Minister of Education, Science and Technology may present his opinion.

(3) The admission quota for each professional law school shall be educational conditions, including faculty, facilities, and finances at each professional law school.

The Minister of Education, Science and Technology shall comprehensively consider the total admission quota under paragraph (1).

shall be determined within the limit.

Article 10 (Establishment and Functions of Law School Education Committee)

A Law School Education Council shall be established under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Education, Science and Technology to deliberate on the following matters:

1. Matters relating to authorization for the establishment of professional law schools (matters relating to the establishment of professional law schools at national universities and colleges);

(including)

2. Matters relating to closure or authorization for modification of a professional law school (a closure or modification of a professional law school established at a national school;

(including matters relating to such matters)

3. Matters relating to the prescribed number of professional law schools;

4. Matters relating to detailed standards for authorization for establishment of professional law schools;

5. Other training of legal professionals and legal education at professional law schools referred by the Minister of Education, Science and Technology.

Matters

Article 11 (Organization of Law School Education Committee)

(1) The Law School Education Committee shall be comprised of 13 members, including one chairperson.

(2) The Chairperson shall be appointed by the Minister of Education, Science and Technology.

(3) Members shall be commissioned by the Minister of Education, Science and Technology from among the following persons:

1. Four persons who are law professors or associate law professors;

2. One person who is a judge with ten or more years of experience and who is recommended by the Minister of National Court Administration;

3. One person who is a public prosecutor with ten or more years of experience and who is recommended by the Minister of Justice;

4. Two persons who are attorneys-at-law with ten or more years of experience and who are recommended by the President of the Korean Bar Association;

5. One person who is a public official with ten or more years of experience in educational administration;

6. Persons with knowledge and good reputation (persons teaching law as full-time instructors or higher and attorneys-at-law.

2) 4 others excluding this section)

Article 12 (Term of Office of Members of Law School Education Committee)

(1) The term of office of the chairperson and members shall be two years, and they may be reappointed.

(2) Where a member loses his/her position or status prescribed in Article 11 (3) 1 through 5 during his/her term of office, he/she shall be above

member's status shall be lost.

Article 13 (Grounds for Exclusion of Members of Law School Education Committee)

No member shall participate in the relevant deliberation in any of the following cases:

1. - Any police officer who is working for a school foundation which establishes and operates a university or college, the subject of deliberation by the principal or his spouse;

U.S.

2. A person who falls under any of the following items and his/her spouse is related to a relative under Article 777 of the Civil Act:

(2) In the case

(a) The head of university subject to deliberation;

(b) Faculty members at law, law, or law school of a university subject to deliberation;

(c) An executive officer of a university subject to deliberation.

[Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Law Schools]

Article 5 (Considerations in Establishment Authorization, etc.)

In granting authorization for the establishment of a professional law school under Articles 5 and 6 of the Act, the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development shall consider balance between regions in order to train excellent human resources necessary for the development of local universities and colleges and regional development.

Article 6 (Admissions at Law Schools)

"Scope prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 7 (3) of the Act means 150 persons.

Article 7 (Operation of Law School Education Committee)

(4) A majority of all incumbent members of the Law School Education Committee shall constitute a quorum, and pass a resolution.

of this section.