The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, Articles 4(1) and 43(1) of the Private School Act, a private high school and an educational foundation that establishes and operates it shall be subject to the direction and supervision of the superintendent of the Office of Education having jurisdiction over his domicile, and the State and a local government may grant subsidies as prescribed by Presidential Decree or Municipal Ordinance of the relevant local government. According to Article 43(2) and (3) of the same Act, the competent agency may, if deemed necessary for support, recommend the relevant school foundation to take necessary measures to change its budget if it is deemed inappropriate in light of the purpose of the relevant school foundation’s business or accounting, or if it fails to comply with the above recommendation, suspend such support.

According to delegation, Articles 3(2) and 5(1) and (2)6 of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Ordinance on Assistance to Private Schools (hereinafter “Seoul Metropolitan City Ordinance on Assistance to Private Schools”) provide that the superintendent of education shall determine whether to grant a subsidy and notify the relevant school juristic person of the result thereof, and the school juristic person shall not use the subsidy for any purpose other than the purpose of granting it, except where prior approval is obtained from the superintendent of education, and the school juristic person may require the return of all or part of the subsidy if the report on the purpose project

Meanwhile, in 2008, the Defendant newly established the 2008 Guideline that “If the private school staff who received the subsidy falls under Article 31 (Disqualifications) of the Local Public Officials Act while in office, he/she shall be excluded from receiving the subsidy.”

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below has a considerable authority to guide and supervise the plaintiff.