교습비조정명령취소
1. On December 19, 2017, the Defendant’s order of adjustment of each tuition fee issued to the Plaintiffs is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From December 2015, Plaintiff A established and operated D (only “D Reading Room”) from Daegu Suwon-gu C6, and Plaintiff B established and operated G stores from Daegu Suwon-gu E and F3 floors (hereinafter “G Reading Room”) from November 2015.
B. On June 7, 2017, the Plaintiffs reported the change of tuition fees to the Defendant that increased the tuition fees of the D Reading Office and the G Reading Office as follows:
(hereinafter referred to as “reported tuition fees” which the Plaintiffs reported. The Plaintiff’s previous tuition fees of KRW 110,800 per day, KRW 13,000 per month, KRW 160,000, KRW 160,000 per month, KRW 13,000 per day, KRW 110,800 per day, KRW 180,000.
C. On December 19, 2017, the Defendant issued an order to adjust the tuition fees, etc. to the Plaintiff A to change the tuition fees to KRW 6,000 per day, and monthly tuition fees to KRW 140,00, based on Article 15 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (hereinafter “Private Teaching Institutes Act”) and Article 17-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, after deliberation by the Mediation Committee, on December 19, 2017. The Defendant issued an order to adjust the tuition fees, etc. to the Plaintiff B to change the tuition fees to KRW 6,00, and monthly tuition fees to KRW 156,00.
(hereinafter) The Defendant’s disposition to issue an order for the adjustment of tuition fees, etc. to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The ground for recognition is without any dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiffs' alleged tuition fees that the plaintiffs reported to the defendant cannot be excessively excessive.
Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked because it is unlawful due to such substantive defects as above.
(b)Article 15(1), (2), and (6) of the Private Institutes Act and Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof; and Article 20(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree thereof.