B. Whether the Board of Education may delegate its authority on the basis of Article 5(1) of the Government Organization Act (negative), and whether Article 106 of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4004 of April 6, 198), Article 5-2 of the former Act on the Provisional Measures for Local Autonomy (amended by Act No. 4009 of April 6, 198), also applies mutatis mutandis to the former Education Act (affirmative)

B. Since the Do Education Committee cannot be deemed as a kind of administrative agency under the Government Organization Act where the special executive body of the affairs concerning the education, art and science of local governments established under the Education Act and the Local Autonomy Act, it cannot be deemed as a kind of administrative agency under the Government Organization Act. Thus, the authority cannot be delegated based on Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act, which is a basis under the Act on the delegation of authority to the affairs concerning the affairs concerning the delegation of authority to the affairs to the national administrative agencies or the agencies of local governments, and on the other hand, Article 35-2 of the former Education Act (amended by Act No. 4009 of April 6, 198), it is proper that the provisions of Article 5 of the Government Organization Act and Article 106 of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4004 of April 6, 198) and Article 5-2 of the former Act on the Temporary Measures for Local Autonomy should also be applied mutatis mutandis to the authority of the local government.

1. The court below's decision that the disposition to approve the appointment of an executive officer of a school juristic person under Article 20 (2) of the Private School Act is proper in accordance with the opinion of the party members (Article 86Nu152 delivered on August 18, 1987), and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, in a case where there is a dispute as to the validity of the appointment of an executive officer, which is a basic act, as a civil litigation, and it is not a legal interest to seek the cancellation or invalidity of the disposition to approve the appointment of an executive officer of the school juristic person under Article 20 (2) of the Private School Act.

2. According to the reasoning of the original judgment, the court below determined in this case the right to approve the appointment of an officer of a school foundation which establishes and operates a private high school as stated in this case belongs to the Board of Education of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Do, which has jurisdiction over its original location. The Education Committee may delegate part of its authority to the Superintendent of the Education Committee as prescribed by Article 29(1) of the Education Act. Meanwhile, Article 5(1) of the Government Organization Act, which is a general provision concerning the delegation or entrustment of the authority of an administrative agency, provides that "an administrative agency may delegate part of its authority to the subsidiary agency or subordinate administrative agency, or entrust or delegate it to another administrative agency or subordinate administrative agency, as prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes." Article 4(2) of the Private School Act provides that "An assistant agency shall carry out its affairs as an administrative agency with respect to the matters delegated by the provisions of paragraph (1) within the scope of its original authority, and the Education Committee, which is a kind of administrative agency under the Government Organization Act, may delegate part of its authority to the Educational Committee within 9.

However, Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act can not be delegated based on Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act because it is not a kind of administrative agency under the Government Organization Act, since it is not a special executive agency under the Education Act (Article 15) and the Local Autonomy Act, in preparation for the contents of Article 1 of the same Act, the theory of classical theory on the kinds and nature of local government affairs, and the provisions on the delegation and entrustment of administrative authority.

Article 106 of the Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4004 of Apr. 6, 198) and Article 5-2 of the Provisional Measures for Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4004 of Apr. 6, 198) apply mutatis mutandis to the Education Act (amended by Act No. 4009 of Apr. 6, 198; hereinafter referred to as the Education Act), first, whether the provisions of Article 35-2 of the Education Act are referred to as an exemplary provision, and second, the necessity of its application is determined depending on the necessity of its application. If the provisions of the Education Act (Article 15 through 34-2) and the Local Autonomy Act are reviewed, it is reasonable to view that the above provisions of Article 35-2 of the Education Act are legitimate and applied mutatis mutandis to the delegation of authority, i.e., Article 5 of the Education Act and Article 106 of the Local Autonomy Act, and thus, the heads of local governments and the heads of local governments are not subject to the Education Council Act.

Therefore, the court below should have reviewed whether the Rules on the Delegation of Administrative Competence of the Standing Committee of the Gyeonggi-do (No. 216 of May 18, 1985) can be seen as a municipal ordinance prescribed in Article 5-2 of the Provisional Measures for Local Autonomy Act without going through its name in light of the process of establishment, type and procedure, etc., and judged that the defendant at issue in this case can be the basis for the delegation of authority to the defendant. However, the court below determined that the defendant at issue in this case was lawful based on Article 5(1) of the Government Organization Act, which affected the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the delegation of authority by administrative agencies, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, it is reasonable to criticize this point.

Therefore, the original judgment shall be reversed and remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)