Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant 000, 000, 000, 000

Law Firm (LLC) 00

Attorney 000, 000, 000,000

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

On April 25, 2014, the judgment revoking the cancellation of the approval of taking office against the plaintiff on April 25, 2014.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

A. A. A school foundation (hereinafter “school foundation”) is established on January 18, 1964, and is a school foundation that establishes and operates Yongsan University. Around 1946, △△△△△△△△△△ was established, a general hospital of the school foundation, and the Plaintiff is the wife of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△, the president of the school foundation. From around 1994, the Plaintiff was appointed as a director of the school foundation and was reappointed on October 13, 201, and was appointed as the chief director of the school foundation from January 201.

B. From around 200 to 10 years, a school juristic person was to promote a "project for profit-making business that newly constructs and sells a main complex building, commercial facilities, and residential welfare facilities for the aged in the area of sports facilities on the south side of the U.S. University, which had been used as a site for the camping site of the U.S. University, and completed development around 2009 by dividing it into a quasi-residential area and a commercial area.

C. From November 25, 2013 to December 9, 2013, the Defendant audited the accounts to the school juristic person and Cheongwon University. On January 13, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the disposition that included 27 items pointed out and corrective matters. The main contents related to the instant case are as follows: “A evidence 1-2, and hereinafter “the audit and inspection report”). The number of the original form of each sequence is the corresponding number of the instant disposition grounds (attached Form 4) to indicate the following.

On the other hand, on January 14, 2014, the defendant notified the plaintiff on the attached Form 2 that separate measures are scheduled in addition to the above corrective measures (Evidence A73).

D. On February 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination. On March 3, 2014, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff the notification of the audit results to the effect that, on March 3, 2014, the Defendant submitted the notification of the audit results to the Plaintiff: (a) two warning related to ① embezzlement, etc. of business promotion expenses; (b) one warning related to ② 25 Serial 25; (c) one warning related to the management and operation of intellectual property rights; and (d) 75 Serial 27; (b) one warning related to the notification of the management and operation of intellectual property rights; (c) the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination; (d) dismissed the rest of the notification of the audit results; and (e) requested correction of the matters pointed out in the audit results reflecting the result of reexamination; and (e) submitted the result to the private university system and private school audit officer; and (e) submitted the notification of the cancellation of approval to the officer in charge of taking office under Article 20-2 of the Private School Act.

E. On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a performance report according to the audit results and the matters requiring correction (Evidence A No. 5), and the contents of the instant case are as shown in Attached Table 3 [the number in the original form of each sequence is the corresponding number in Attached Table 4].

F. On March 27, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on March 27, 2014, regarding the cancellation of the approval of the officer taking office, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff of the holding of the hearing by stating that “the Plaintiff was the cause of the disposition”, “the unfair management of basic property for profit, the borrowing of funds, the unfair disposal of the dismissal from office by the senior executive officer, the unfair acquisition of the contributions by the senior executive officer for profit-making business, the unfair use of the senior executive officer’s basic property for profit-making business, the unfair use of the senior executive officer’s fundamental property for profit-making, the unfair use of the senior executive officer’s operating expenses, the unfair use of the senior executive director’s card, the unfair employment of the senior executive director’s employees for profit-making business, the false employment of affiliated middle school teachers, and the non-compliance of the audit results’ order,” and (b) submitted a written opinion on the procedures for the hearing on April 7, 2014.

G. On April 25, 2014, based on Article 20-2 of the Private School Act, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the approval of taking office for the Plaintiff on the grounds of ten items, such as attached Table 4, [No. 60, hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition,” and each of the “reasons for Disposition” is specified as the same. The number indicated as the overall title in the attached Table 4 is the sequence of the disposition of audit results (No. 1-2, 1).

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 60, 73, 75, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

(a) ‘The assertion that there was no demand for correction or that correction was completed in accordance with a demand for correction', and ‘the matters for which a demand for correction has been complied with' cannot be used as a ground for cancellation of approval of taking office under Article 20-2 of the Private School Act.

With respect to the grounds for disposition 1, 2, 4, and 5 (No. 1, 2, 4, and 6 of each audit and inspection report No. 1, 2, 4, and 5), the Defendant requested that the Plaintiff take personnel measures without any separate request, and the school juristic person completed the personnel measures accordingly, and completed the correction in accordance with the demand for correction 7 (No. 10) as well as the grounds for disposition 3, 6, 8, and 9 (No. 3,8, 15, and 20 of each audit and inspection report No. 3,8, 15, and 20).

Therefore, with regard to the above part of the defendant's completion of the implementation, the defendant's approval of taking office cannot be a ground for cancellation.

B. The assertion that there is no ground to dispose of

All of the grounds for each of the dispositions in this case are erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, and thus cannot be used as the grounds for disposition.

(c) argument that procedural defects exist.

In the case of 10 (Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 15, 18, and 20 of the audit and inspection report), the hearing procedures with respect to the plaintiff have not been conducted, and the specific contents of the grounds for disposition and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes have not been presented in the written disposition, it shall not be deemed the grounds for disposition.

(d) argument that the discretion has been exceeded and abused;

Even if the grounds for each disposition of this case exist, the disposition of this case is unlawful by abusing discretion when considering the fact that the Plaintiff contributed significantly to the development of the school juristic person, and that the Plaintiff fulfilled its best efforts to implement the Defendant’s demand for correction.

3. Relevant statutes;

The main contents of the relevant statutes shall be as shown in attached Form 5.

4. Judgment by issue

A. Basic legal doctrine 1) Under Article 20-2(1) of the Private School Act, when an executive violates the provisions of the Private School Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and the Higher Education Act, or fails to comply with an order issued thereunder, (Article 20-2(1) and Article 20-2(1) of the Private School Act provides that “When a serious obstacle to the operation of the relevant school is caused to the pertinent school due to disputes and accounting fraud among executives and significant unfair practices.” Accordingly, cancellation of approval of taking office under subparagraph 1 shall be recognized as a violation of the Private School Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and the Higher Education Act, and the revocation of approval of taking office under subparagraph 2 shall be recognized as a serious obstacle to the operation of the relevant school for each reason.

B) The revocation of the approval of taking office under Article 20-2 (2) of the Private School Act shall be limited to the case where the competent agency fails to comply with it even after 15 days have elapsed from the date on which the competent agency requested the school juristic person to correct the reasons therefor.

However, if it is obvious that it is impossible to correct it even if the request for correction is made, or if the degree of corruption, such as accounting fraud, embezzlement, bribery, etc., is serious, the approval of the officer in charge of taking office may be cancelled without the request for correction, and the detailed standards thereof shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree." According to the delegation of Article 9-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, the case where the competent agency can cancel the approval of the officer in charge of taking office without the request for correction" (Article 9-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act refers to the case where it is evident that the officer's accounting fraud with respect to 30% or more of the basic property for profit of the school juristic person in question, is clearly confirmed by the court's ruling or the competent agency's audit. (Article 9-2 (1) 3)

In light of the above relevant laws and regulations, if the competent agency revokes the appointment approval of an executive officer of a school juristic person for reasons of violating the Private School Act, the competent agency may revoke the appointment approval only if the school juristic person first requests correction, and the school juristic person fails to comply with such request, even if 15 days have passed since it was requested to correct it, unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 9-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree

Therefore, it is unlawful to revoke the approval of taking office immediately without requiring a school foundation to correct it, even though the competent agency does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 9-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du19297, Jul. 19, 207; Supreme Court Decision 2012Du7783, May 29, 2014). Furthermore, the amendment process of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes is unlawful where the competent agency requested a school foundation to correct the approval of taking office on the ground of the reason for revocation of taking office, and the revocation of the approval of taking office on the ground of the relevant reason for revocation is also unlawful even if the school foundation fully fulfilled the request for correction. 2)

Article 20-2 (2) of the Private School Act provides that the revocation of the appointment of an officer of a school juristic person shall be made only when 15 days have elapsed from the date on which the competent agency requested the school juristic person to correct the reason. In this regard, considering the autonomy of the private school, the Supreme Court interpreted that even if the competent agency discovered the reason for revocation of the appointment approval, it should not immediately revoke the appointment approval of an officer, but should give the school juristic person an opportunity to correct it within a certain period and revoke the appointment approval only when the school juristic person does not comply with it. Even if it is impossible to correct it, even if it is impossible to correct it, the competent authority should grant the fixed period of appointment under the above provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du19297, Jul. 19, 200; Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7138, Feb. 5, 2002).

However, the proviso of Article 20-2 (2) of the Private School Act was newly established by Act No. 7802 on December 29, 2005, and Article 20-2 (2) of the Private School Act is newly established: Provided, That in cases where it is evident that it is impossible to correct even if the request for correction was made, or the degree of corruption is serious, such as accounting fraud, embezzlement, and bribery, it may be cancelled without the request for correction, and detailed standards therefor shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. "The provisions of Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act as amended by Presidential Decree No. 19546 on June 23, 2006, based on the delegation provisions of the above proviso, clearly provide that "where it is evident that it is impossible for the competent agency to correct it within the required period even if the request for correction was made" (Article 1).

B) The meaning of "where it is apparent that it cannot be corrected even if the correction is requested."

If the appointment approval of an officer can take place without a request for correction, it is an issue of what meaning "where it is obvious that it is impossible to correct even if the Private School Act requests correction."

The purport of the above Supreme Court precedents, prior to the revocation of the approval of taking office where an officer's illegal act has been revealed, is to give the school juristic person concerned an opportunity to correct the illegal act as much as possible in consideration of the private school autonomy. However, it seems that the demand for correction even in a case where it is impossible to correct it and it is unreasonable to demand it even in a case where it is not intended to do so, is derived from the reflective consideration that the demand for correction would result in compelling the procedure without any interest to cancel the approval of the officer.

In this regard, the phrase “in a case where it is evident that it is impossible to correct even if a request for correction is made,” refers to a case where it is impossible to correct the result of an officer’s illegal act or nonperformance of an order, and this is ultimately a matter to which extent the content and method of correction that can be demanded. However, as long as the purpose of the request for correction is to guarantee the autonomy of private school by providing an opportunity for correction to the private school by providing an opportunity to correct it, it is reasonable to view the case where it is possible to correct even after ex post facto, if there is a room to correct or supplement an officer’s illegal act, or there is room to implement an defaulted order. Therefore, if an approval for appointment of an officer can be revoked immediately without a request for correction, it is difficult to expect the effectiveness of the request for correction, or if the correction itself is legally impossible or factually possible, it is obvious that the correction is not permissible.

B. Determination on the grounds for individual disposition

1) On February 20, 2002, the school foundation (A) concluded a 0-story-dong 227-7, 415-7, 415-17-7777-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-7-7-77-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7000---7-7-7-7-200-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-777-77-77.

(E) Unlike the initial guidance for sale in lots, the occupants filed a civil petition against the school juristic person from 2006 to 2006, which had not been provided with the exclusive sports center. The residents filed a civil petition with the competent agency regarding the construction of a clive 500 square facilities, which was in the second stage of the 000 project. (f) The school juristic person filed a lawsuit against the Egypt on the leased area between Egypt and Egypt (Seoul Central District Court 2007Du22946). This lawsuit against the Egypt (Seoul Central District Court 2007Da9984, 2000, 2000, 2000). The education juristic person and Egypt were released from the Seoul High Court 200,700 Egypt's 208 Egypt's 200,0000 Egypt's 208.

10. 24. and December 16, 2008 confirmed this agreement between the school foundation and the council of occupants' representatives.

(h) The school foundation (h) included the budget of KRW 3,267,00,00 as the design and construction cost of the sports center facilities in the fiscal year 2012, and reported it to the board of directors on February 6, 2013. Since 2012, the school foundation included approximately KRW 3 billion in the premium reduction work, the interior decoration work, the indoor quota market, the indoor golf driving range, and the shooting range, some of which are maintained as public rooms.

(i) A school foundation has borne management expenses of KRW 1,639,341,00 in total from 2009 to 2013. (j) A school foundation has failed to consult with the council of occupants' representatives on details such as operating entity, management expenses, etc., and thus has not been used by residents of the sports center until the date of closing argument in the instant case.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap's statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 6 through 10, 60, 76, 81 through 87, and the purport of the whole pleadings (2) is determined.

(A) Under the Private School Act, the board of directors shall deliberate and resolve on the matters concerning the budget, settlement of accounts, loans, and the acquisition and management of property of a school juristic person (Article 16(1)1), and shall obtain permission from the competent authorities when the school juristic person intends to sell, exchange, change the purpose of use, or offer it as security, or to bear or waive the obligations, and shall report minor matters as prescribed by the Presidential Decree to the competent authorities (Article 28(1). Article 11(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act specifically provides for minor matters as prescribed by the proviso of Article 28(1) of the Act.

(B) First, it is deemed that the school foundation’s agreement on the establishment of sports center facilities on the first floor of the building located under the 227-dong 3, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is an endowment for profit with the residents of 0000 residents and the provision of sports center facilities free of charge is related to the management of fundamental property or is equivalent to the burden of obligations, and thus is subject to

As seen in the above facts, the content of the advertisement for sale in lots was abstract, such as having a sports center available to occupants in the complex of 000, while the agreement with the occupants was made after the lapse of five years from May 2003 when the sale in lots was completed, and it was concrete that the occupants should be provided free of charge after establishing the sports center facility at the Plaintiff’s expense. For the implementation of the above agreement, it is difficult to view that the burden of the obligation pursuant to the above agreement is included within the previous business scope of 000, or that there was an agreement already made with the contents of the sale in lots.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that there was an ex post ratification because it had been resolved by the board of directors in the process of compiling the revised supplementary budget bill in 2012. However, it cannot be deemed that there was a legitimate resolution of the board of directors, even if there was a legitimate resolution of the board of directors, it cannot be deemed that the above agreement and the cost of facilities were lawful merely because it did not have the permission of the competent agency.

Therefore, even though the obligation to establish sports center facilities and to provide free of charge under the above agreement is a burden of the obligation on fundamental property for profit and subject to the resolution of the board of directors, and is subject to permission of the competent agency, the plaintiff concluded the above agreement with residents without the resolution of the board of directors or permission of the competent agency, and spent the Si facilities accordingly, thereby violating Article 16(1) and Article 28(1) of the Private School Act. (c) However, in relation to the expenditure of management expenses, sports center part is a part of the school foundation to manage the school foundation upon return from Embrate, and the school foundation (SeoulAMC) cannot bear joint management expenses according to the ratio of the area. It is not necessary for the board of directors to decide separately because it is included in the ordinary management affairs, and there is no circumstance to deem that there was a significant obstacle to the operation of the school due to significant unfair practices, etc. (d) Accordingly, the part on the conclusion of the agreement and the part on the cancellation of the approval of executive officers under Article 20-2(1)1)1 of the Private School Act.

나 ) 시정요구가 없거나 모두 이행되었는지 여부 ( 1 ) 피고는 학교법인에게 처분사유 1에 관하여 전 사무국장 △△△, 전 사무국부장 ■■■에 대한 경고 조치 ( 각 퇴직으로 불문 ) 외에 별도의 시정요구를 하지 아니하였고 , 그 경고 조치마저도 ' 퇴직으로 불문 ' 한다고 되어 있어 그 이행이 불필요한 것으로 보이므로, 결국 아무런 시정요구를 하지 아니하였다고 할 것이다 . ( 2 ) 이에 대하여 피고는 처분사유 1은 ' 관할청이 시정을 요구하여도 요구기한 내에 시정할 수 없는 것이 명백한 경우 ' 에 해당하므로 시정요구 없이 처분하더라도 적법하다고 주장한다 .

Therefore, in the case of health expenses and 1 disposition reasons, the defendant, without the resolution of the board of directors necessary for the management of basic property for profit or the bearing of obligations, concluded the above agreement and paid facility expenses and management expenses without the permission of the administrative agency, seems to be a matter of procedural problems that the defendant did not obtain the resolution of the board of directors and the permission of the administrative agency.

However, it is reasonable to view that a school juristic person may take measures to correct the illegality of the above agreement and expenses by requiring a resolution of the board of directors and permission of the competent agency within a certain period of time, and it is not clear that a corrective measure is not effective or it is not possible to obtain a resolution of the board of directors and permission of the competent agency after the conclusion of the above agreement, if it is a way to seek appropriate resolution of the dispute, and there is no legal effect of the ex post facto approval (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da4284, May 10, 2007, etc.). Since it is possible to obtain ex post approval from the competent agency (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu5145, Jun. 27, 1997, etc.). The defendant can take measures to correct the illegality of the above agreement and expenses by requiring a school juristic person to obtain a resolution of the board of directors and permission of the competent agency within a certain period of time.

Therefore, the part concerning the expenses incurred in the agreement and facility in the grounds for disposition 1 cannot be seen as falling under the case where it is evident that the defendant cannot correct even if the defendant requested correction. Thus, unless the defendant does not request correction to the school juristic person, the part concerning the expenses incurred in the agreement and facility cannot be considered as the grounds for disposition.

C) Sub-determination

Ultimately, the reason for the disposition cannot be the reason for the cancellation of the approval of taking office against the plaintiff. 2) The facts acknowledged as the reason for the disposition (A. (A.) as to the unjust borrowing of funds (b) (i.e., the reason for the disposition) and (a) the school foundation decided to newly build commercial facilities and residential welfare facilities for the plaintiff at the second stage of 000 project. A. The school foundation entered into a lease agreement with the visiting shopping around May 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "shot shopping"), whereby the lot shopping deposit is KRW 10 billion and KRW 18 billion to operate the department store in a commercial facility (hereinafter referred to as the "contract of this case"). (b) The lease agreement of this case is related to the payment of the deposit money of this case and the contents related to the payment of the deposit money of this case are as follows:

(C) The main purpose of the main purpose of the shopping mall connecting the interest rate of 2 lines adjacent to the department store was to pay KRW 000,000, the district unit plan (No. 2002 - 142 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City notification) publicly notified by the Gwangjin-gu Office (No. 2002 - 332 of the Gwangjin-gu notification No. 2002 of September 5, 2002), and the two district unit development plan (No. 2002) was to be included in the construction permit. (D) On January 7, 2003, neighboring local merchants were to pay KRW 10,000,000 to the main purpose of the shopping mall, and the construction of the main purpose was to pay KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

(F) On April 16, 2010, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City notified the Plaintiff that “the construction of a public connecting passage is not desirable in principle as a result of the deliberation by the Joint Committee on Urban and Building,” and that “the construction of a public connecting passage requires legal review as to whether the cost of the construction of the public connecting passage can be invested in the improvement of the traffic environment in the relevant region, and that “the collection of opinions from local residents, such as residents in the two district planning zone at the time of non-establishment of the public connecting passage in Gwangjin-gu.” On July 28, 2009, the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City notified the Plaintiff that “the collection of opinions from local residents, such as residents in the two district planning zone at the time of non-establishment of the public connecting passage.”

(G) On June 25, 2010, a school juristic person entered into a second special agreement to return any balance and interest (interest calculated at the rate of 4.5% per annum during the period from the date of receipt to the scheduled date of opening a public connection route, and evidence A No. 17) received by the school juristic person to a lot shopping with respect to the payment of 10 billion won.

(h) However, on August 26, 2010, Class 1 district unit planning and 2 district unit planning on August 26, 2010

The plan plan for the installation of public connecting passage connecting subway 2 lines to subway 000 stations and 2 district planning zones was abolished due to the decision of detailed development plan for the planning zone (revision) and the notification of topographic drawings (Seoul Metropolitan Government Notification 2010 - 309).

(i) When it became final and conclusive that a school juristic person is unable to install a public connecting passage, around October 2010, the school juristic person held 10 billion won for the remainder of the lease deposit paid by a lot shopping, and paid interest at KRW 150,411,00 as stipulated in the special agreement on June 25, 2010, with regard to the payment of the remainder of the lease deposit in lot shopping, as stipulated in the agreement on June 25, 2010. The school juristic person agreed to receive the remainder of the lease deposit from lot shopping, and paid the interest pursuant to the said agreement.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap's entries in Gap's evidence Nos. 11 through 17, 60, 77 through 80, 86, 103, and 125, and the purport of the whole pleadings (2)

It is deemed necessary to adopt a separate resolution of the board of directors or permission from the competent authorities because a school foundation borrows funds to pay interest in advance from a lot shopping, and bears a new obligation to pay interest.

In light of the following: (a) the instant lease agreement only requires a school foundation to pay the remainder of the lease deposit after establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis; (b) a special agreement on July 28, 2009; and (c) a special agreement on June 25, 2010, each of the following items: (a) a school foundation is obliged to pay the remainder of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff only; (b) a school foundation is obliged to pay the remainder of the lease deposit; (c) a special agreement on July 28, 2009; (c) the payment of the deposit should be made in advance of the outstanding payment date specified in the initial agreement; and (d) a school foundation’s waiver of the outstanding payment date; and (e) the interest that the school foundation bears on the consideration of the fact that the school foundation is unable to perform its obligations by a specified period; and (e) a new decision on the establishment of a public connecting passage was made on April 16, 2010 on the ground that the establishment of a new school foundation was subject to permission.

Therefore, the reason for disposition 2 shall not be deemed to have violated the Private School Act, and there is no reason to deem that there was a significant obstacle to school operation due to a significant unfair practices, and thus, it does not constitute the reason for revocation of approval of taking office

B) Sub-committee

Ultimately, it is not necessary to examine whether the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to take corrective action. 3) Whether the grounds for revocation of approval of taking office against the Plaintiff are recognized as the grounds for revocation of the disposition (the grounds for disposition 3). (A) Prior to the fact that ○○○ president is recognized as the grounds for revocation of the disposition (the grounds for disposition 1).

① On May 23, 2012, the standing auditor of a school foundation pointed out that the board of directors, on the 547th meeting of May 23, 2012, extracted from the audit report of the fiscal year 2011 (Evidence 20 No. 20), presented the following points: (a) the procedural and content problems in the business agreement entered into with KT due to the fact of minor misconduct; (b) arbitrarily entered into a private contract for the course management services of the golf course operated by the school foundation; and (c) the use of business promotion expenses

② 이사들은 위 이사회에서 오 총장을 질책하면서 ○ 총장에 대한 해임의 건이 이사회 안건에 없으니 총장이 자진 사퇴하라고 종용하였다. 오는 곧 거취를 밝히겠다며 시간을 달라고 하였고, 이사들은 이사회에서 해임을 바로 의결할 수 있는지 논의하였으나, 절차상 문제가 있다고 보아 다음 이사회를 2012. 6. 2. 로 정하되 다음 이사회의 안건으로 ' 총장 해임에 관한 건 ' 을 상정하는 것으로 정리하였다. 이에 따라 이사 ◆◆◆은 □□대학교 총장 해임에 관한 건을 차기 이사회에서 심의하기로 발의하고, 이사들이 이에 동의하여 2012. 6. 2. 이사회를 개최하기로 의결하였고, 외도 다음 이사회 개최일 전까지 자신의 거취를 밝히겠다고 진술하였다 .

③ However, on May 29, 2012, before the meeting of the former board of directors was held, a resignation letter was submitted, and the Plaintiff accepted the resignation letter and dealt with it as a member dismissal.

④ On July 3, 2012, a school foundation discussed the election of the next president following his resignation at the board of directors, and on November 23, 2012, the board of directors passed a resolution to file a civil or criminal complaint with the president prior to the commencement of the meeting.

⑤ On May 21, 2013, the Defendant was indicted for occupational embezzlement on the criminal facts, such as ○, etc., that he/she embezzled using business promotion expenses for personal purposes, which he/she had been in the occupational custody of Dol University, for the purpose of personal use. On October 31, 2013, he/she was convicted of a four-year judgment of imprisonment in the first instance court (Seoul Western District Court 2013 High Court 198), and he/she appealed, but he/she appealed on the charges.

1. 23. The appeal was dismissed (Seoul High Court 2013No3477), and its judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[ 인정근거 ] 갑 제18 내지 20, 60, 66, 67, 104호증, 을 제20, 39호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지 ( 나 ) □□□ 및 ■■■ 관련

① 감사 △△△은 감사결과 2013. 4. 29. 전 학교법인 사무국장인 □□□이 전사무국부장 ■■■을 통해 수입사업체 자금 2, 600만 원을 횡령하였다고 지적하였다 .

② □□□은 위 횡령사실을 인정하고 학교법인에 그 금원을 배상하였고, 그에 관하여 2013. 10. 31. 업무상횡령죄로 벌금 300만 원을 선고받았으나, ■■■은 2013 .

10. 31. 31. He received a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to prove that he embezzled funds with L/C. (Evidence insufficient).

③ 한편 □□□은 2013. 4. 30., ■■■은 2013. 5. 2. 각 사직서를 제출하였는데, 원고는 이를 수리하고, ■■■에 대하여는 「 학교법인 □□대학교 명예퇴직수당규정 」 에 따른 명예퇴직수당으로 241, 704, 000원을 지급하였다 .

④ 학교법인은 피고의 시정 요구에 따라 2014. 3. 13. ■■■ 에 대하여 서울동부지방법원 2014가합101598호로 위 명예퇴직수당 중 140, 994, 000원은 명예퇴직 및 수당지급규정 」 에 따른 정당한 명예퇴직금 액수를 초과하여 지급된 것이라는 취지로 그 금액 상당을 부당이득으로 반환을 구하는 소를 제기하였는데, 제1심에서는 학교법인의 청구가 일부 인용되었으나, 항소심 ( 서울고등법원 2014나2031798 ) 에서는 ■■■의 항소를 인용하고 학교법인의 청구를 모두 기각하는 판결이 선고되었으며, 이에 학교법인의 상고로 상고심 계속 중이다 ( 대법원 2015다213797 ) .

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 21, 22, 105, and 126, and the purport of the whole pleadings (2) shall be determined.

(A) As to the former president, when a teacher of a private school commits an act of violating this Act and other education-related Acts and subordinate statutes, when he violates or neglects his duties, or when he commits an act of impairing his dignity as a teacher regardless of whether he is inside or outside of his duties, the person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss the relevant teacher shall request a disciplinary resolution, and the person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss the relevant teacher shall take disciplinary measures according to the result of the disciplinary resolution (Article 61(1)), and the person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss the relevant teacher shall have a teachers’ disciplinary committee for deliberation and resolution (Article 62(1)), and matters concerning the appointment and dismissal of the head and teachers of the private school (Article 16(1)5). Considering the above provisions, the person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss the relevant teacher shall have discretion to determine whether the act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action, and the person who is authorized to appoint and dismiss the relevant teacher shall have the duty to request the competent disciplinary committee to make a disciplinary resolution if it is objectively evident as a result of the investigation.

In light of the following: (a) whether the Plaintiff is obligated to demand a disciplinary resolution without accepting a written resignation from the Plaintiff; (b) the auditor was pointed out in the audit; (c) the board of directors on May 23, 2012; (c) the board of directors failed to properly inform the Plaintiff of the irregularities; and (d) the board of directors on May 23, 2012 demanded the resignation of the president at the time; (c) the board of directors appears to have specifically revealed suspicions about the misconduct in the lawsuit at the time; (d) the board of directors was found guilty of having been prosecuted for a part of the facts charged as the facts charged; and (c) the board of directors, like the Plaintiff, have the duty to demand a disciplinary resolution if it is objectively apparent that a teacher falls under the grounds for disciplinary action, not to accept a written resignation; and (e) the Plaintiff was obligated to demand a disciplinary resolution on the misconduct by the disciplinary committee; and even if other directors were to demand voluntary withdrawal from the office of directors, the Plaintiff’s act cannot be deemed to have been exempt from the same as the Plaintiff’s duty to demand a disciplinary resolution.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff violated Article 61(1) and Article 16(1)5 of the Private School Act by accepting a written resignation without demanding a resolution on disciplinary action against a lawsuit, thereby failing to take a disciplinary action against the address of the Plaintiff.

(B) Article 88(1) of the school juristic person’s articles of incorporation applies mutatis mutandis to a clause that applies mutatis mutandis to a general employee’s disciplinary action to a private school teacher, and Article 26 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Faculty Members of Cheongsan University provides that a former teacher may be punished if he/she falls under any of the following subparagraphs. Article 29 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Faculty Members provides that a request for disciplinary action against a teacher, disciplinary procedure, a request for deliberation on disciplinary action, a procedure for reexamination, and a disposition of correction shall be made in the school juristic person upon the recommendation of the president pursuant to the provisions of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status, the

Inasmuch as the illegality was specifically recognized by the Gidae, Gidae, Gisung, as an embezzlement, the Plaintiff did not comply with Article 88(1) of the School Foundation’s Articles of Incorporation, and Article 61(1) of the Private School Act, since he did not demand the disciplinary committee to decide on the disciplinary action against the Doisung.

( 다 ) ■■■에 대하여 □□□의 횡령 적발 당시에는 ■■■ 이 이에 어떻게 가담하였는지 인정할 만한 증거가 없었고, 실제로 수사기관에서도 ■■■은 불기소처분을 받은 점을 감안하면 , 이 사건 처분 당시에는 ■■■에 대하여는 비위사실이 분명하게 밝혀지지 않아 원고가 ■■■을 관할 징계위원회에 징계의결을 요구할 의무가 있었다고 보기 어렵다 .

또한 ■■■에 대하여 지급한 명예퇴직수당과 관련하여서도, ■■■에 대한 부당이득반환청구소송의 항소심에서 ■■■에 대한 명예퇴직수당의 지급이 적법하다고 인정되기도 한 점을 감안하면, 원고가 이와 관련하여 선관주의의무를 위반하였다거나 법령 위반의 잘못이 있었다고 단정하기 어렵다 .

따라서 처분사유 3 중 ■■■ 에 관한 부분은 처분사유로 인정되지 않는다 . ( 3 ) 소결

따라서 처분사유 3 중, □□□에 관한 부분은 사립학교법 제20조의2 제1항 제1호의 임원승인취소 요건을 충족하였으나, ■■■ 에 관한 부분은 위 임원승인 취소 요건을 충족하지 못하였다 .

(b)whether no corrective action is requested or all are complied with;

피고는 처분사유 3에 관한 시정요구사항으로 ① 법인과장 참사 ▲▲▲, 인사계장 주사 ▽▽▽에 대한 경고 조치, ② 전 사무국장 □□□에 대한 중징계 ( 해임 ) ( 퇴직으로 불문 ), ③ 전 사무국부장 ■■■ 에 대한 경징계 ( 퇴직으로 불문 ), 사무국장 참여 ▼▼ ▼에 대한 경징계, ④ 초과지급한 명예퇴직수당 140, 994, 000원을 ■■■ 등 관련자로부터 회수하여 법인회계에 세입조치할 것을 명하였다 .

그런데 위 시정요구사항 중 ' 퇴직으로 불문 ' 한다고 기재된 자들에 대하여는 문언상 징계 조치를 이행할 필요가 없고, 초과지급한 명예퇴직수당의 회수는 ■■■ 에 관한 처분사유가 인정됨을 전제로 한 것인데 ■■■에 관한 처분사유가 인정되지 않는 이상 이 사건 처분 당시까지 회수가 완료되지 않았다고 하더라도 이를 문제 삼을 수 없으며, 그 외에 ▲▲▲, ▽▽▽에 대하여는 학교법인이 경고 조치를 완료하고, ▼▼▼에 대하여는 □□대학교 일반직원징계위원회에서 경징계 중 하나인 견책결정을 한 사실이 인정되므로, 결국 원고는 피고가 요구한 시정요구사항을 모두 이행하기는 하였다 .

그러나, 원고가, □□□에 대하여 징계요구를 하지 아니한 채 의원면직 처리를 한 잘못은 그 성격상 원상회복이 불가능하여 시정 자체가 법률상 · 사실상 불가능함이 명백한 경우에 해당한다고 보아야 하고, 관련자들에 대한 경고 처분을 한다고 하여 그 시정이 충분히 이루어진다고 할 수 없다 ( 대법원 2015. 6. 23. 선고 2014두 19943 판결 등 참조 ), 피고가 시정요구사항으로 의원면직 처리된 당사자들인 □□□ 및 ■■■에 대한 징계 조치를 들면서도 ' 퇴직으로 불문 ' 으로 기재하고, 이 사건 처분 다음날 이 부분에 관하여 별도 조치를 예정하고 있다는 취지를 밝힌 것도 퇴직한 직원에게 징계절차를 함으로써 원상회복을 하는 것은 불가능하다는 점에 기인한 불가피한 조치였다고 할 것이다 .

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, among the 3st reasons for the disposition, the part against the OO can be considered as the reasons for the disposition regardless of the existence or implementation of the request for correction because it is evident that it is impossible to correct it.

4) The fact that (a) recognition of the reason for disposal (a) recognition of the reason for disposal is made with respect to unjust management of the capital invested of an importing enterprise (a) (a) (a) the school foundation classify the corporate accounts into general accounts and profit-making accounts in its articles of incorporation; (b) for the operation of a school established and operated by the school foundation, ① real estate development and lease business; ② real estate sale and supply business; ③ agricultural stock and forestry business; ④ residential welfare facility business; ⑤ golf course development and operation business; ⑤ tourist accommodation business and any other incidental business related thereto; and (b) the name of the enterprise established for a school foundation’s profit-making business is defined as “GGGGGF PAN” (Article 37).

(B) A school foundation has carried out a construction project in the second phase of the project 000 project, which is a residential welfare facility for older persons. A school foundation has converted the total amount of 86,762,00,000,000, to an investment of 500,000, in addition to 'the total amount of 86,762,00,000,000, in around April 2012 and around March 2013.

(C) The school foundation stated the details of the conversion of contributions in the budget settlement table and balance sheet of the school foundation, and was deliberated and resolved by the board of directors on the settlement of accounts.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 23 through 26, and the purport of the whole pleadings (2)

Article 6 (4) of the Private School Act requires school juristic persons to manage the accounts separately from the accounts of school expenses and profit-making business, but does not stipulate that the accounts of profit-making business should be managed separately for each enterprise.

With respect to this case, the Health Center and the school juristic person operate five enterprises for profit-making business, and do not establish separate corporations for each enterprise, and all of them operate the business under the name of the school juristic person and keep separate accounting for each revenue company at will for internal management purposes. In other words, the whole profit-making business is managed as a single profit-making business account, and each profit-making business entity is treated as such as an individual business department established

As such, all rights and obligations arising from each for-profit enterprise of a school foundation are attributed to the school foundation, and the school foundation has managed the accounts separately for the management of performance by for-profit enterprise.

In light of the fact that it cannot be seen as a separate corporation, and the OAMC’s investment is treated as an investment of 500 projects, and it is not an actual change in the school juristic person’s financial status as a profit-making business account because it does not leak money from the school juristic person’s profit-making business account, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the board of directors deliberated on and confirmed the matters concerning the formal transfer of funds within this profit-making business accounting unit by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the investment of the AO is converted into an investment of 500 square meters; and (b) the fact that there is no change in the financial status of the school juristic person; and (c) the fact that the investment of the AO is deemed to have been more than the actual financial status.

B) Sub-committee

Therefore, the reason for disposition 4 cannot be considered as the reason for revocation of approval of taking office against the plaintiff. 5) Whether the ground for disposition is recognized (A) whether the ground for disposition is recognized (A) as to the unfair acquisition of golf membership, such as golf membership, etc. (5) (A) (A) the school juristic person acquiring golf membership shall not be considered as the ground for revocation of disposition against the plaintiff. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18802, Jun. 2, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 19683, Oct. 17, 2006>

From the IdentityCC 719, 272, 00 won, 1,336, 454, 000 won from Bosch Rexroth on October 12, 2007, and 919, 800, and 00 won from LehovahCC on August 28, 2008, each golf course membership was acquired without the prior resolution of the board of directors.

On May 24, 2006, the board of directors of the 500th meeting of the 500th meeting on May 24, 2006 deliberated and resolved that the school foundation acquired 592, 760,00 won as an investment asset for the 'investment assets'.

From May 13, 2010 to August 28, 2011, a school foundation has suffered losses from the sale of all the memberships of each of the above golf courses and the disposal of KRW 880,526,00 in total. (b) An investing school foundation decided to make an investment with the deposit money for commercial buildings and pay senior citizens' health care facilities. The amount of KRW 5 billion out of the remainder remaining after executing it in the department store, pay-paid nursing facilities, and the Lone Star Ballast Investment Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Investment Association") with the investment period of KRW 4 years and the target return rate of KRW 35% per annum. The investment was made without prior resolution of the board of directors, based on the approval of the Plaintiff.

The school juristic person included the contents of such investment in the settlement of accounts in the fiscal year 2007, and on May 23, 2008, the 515 meeting of the board of directors approved the contents of the settlement of accounts.

On December 20, 2007, a school foundation has invested KRW 3,906,00,000 in total in an investment partnership until February 28, 2013.

Meanwhile, as of February 29, 2013, there was an appraised loss of KRW 380 million with respect to the investment amount. However, as of October 2013, the investment association’s business return on the investment completion project was 3.4%, and the Plaintiff actually recovered KRW 3,906,00,000,000 with respect to the investment amount from the investment association until December 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 27 through 29, 90, 108, and the purport of the whole pleadings (2)

(A) Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act defines membership rights of golf courses as basic property and ordinary property, and Article 28 of the Private School Act provides that in the event of selling fundamental property, it shall obtain permission from the competent agency or report minor matters to the competent agency. On the other hand, Article 16 of the Private School Act provides that matters concerning the budget, settlement of accounts, loans, and acquisition, disposal and management of property of school juristic persons, and matters concerning profit-making business (Article 16) shall be deliberated and decided by the board of directors in relation to the whole property of school juristic persons. Article 16 of the Private School Act provides that the scope of deliberation and resolution by the board of directors may be limited to the whole property of school juristic persons.

Considering that there are differences in importance between fundamental property and ordinary property, and that private school statutes stipulate that only fundamental property should be subject to strict control, such as permission, reporting, etc. by the competent authorities, it cannot be said that all general property, other than fundamental property, should be purchased and disposed of through prior resolution by the board of directors. If the general property belonging to the ordinary school juristic person’s business is disposed of, then the board of directors can deliberate and pass a resolution after the board of directors can not be said to have violated Article 16(1) of the Private School Act.

In this case, aside from the fact that some executives and employees, such as the Plaintiff and the president, are limited to the persons eligible to use the golf course membership rights, in terms of the purchase and disposal of the golf course membership rights, this belongs to a school juristic person’s ordinary business as an acquisition and disposal of ordinary property, and it is deemed that there was an ex post facto deliberation and resolution by the board of directors. Therefore,

(B) Investment in the investment portion related to the investment association is about the management and profit-making business of the property. However, since there is a concern about loss due to the nature of the investment and there is a possibility that the principal may be returned even if the investment is revoked, it is necessary to execute the investment contract in accordance with the prior decision of the board of directors as to whether to deposit the financial assets with the financial institution or not. In particular, in the instant case, it cannot be deemed as ordinary disposal and management of the property in light of the fact that the investment period is relatively long-term and the amount of investment is a large amount, and it is necessary to do so. As a result, profits have been realized after the instant disposition, it is not different

Therefore, the Plaintiff decided to make an investment independently without undergoing prior deliberation and resolution by the board of directors, and invested a large amount of money, thereby violating Article 16(1)1 and 7 of the Private School Act.

(C) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, the part of investment in investment associations among grounds 5 for disposition meets the requirements for revocation of approval under Article 20-2(1)1 of the Private School Act, but the part of the purchase of golf course membership did not meet the requirements for revocation of approval.

나 ) 시정요구가 없었거나 모두 이행되었는지 여부 ( 1 ) 앞서 든 증거에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고는 처분사유 5에 관한 시정사항으로 전 사무국장 □□□, 전 사무국부장 ■■■에 대한 경고조치 ( 각 퇴직으로 불문 ), 전 사무국부장 ▼▼▼, 전 법인과장 참사 → → →에 대한 경고조치를 할 것을 요구하였는데, 학교법인은 ▼▼▼, → → →에 대한 경고조치를 이행함으로써 각 퇴직으로 불문하는 자들을 제외한 자들을 제외하고는 경고조치를 모두 이행한 사실이 인정된다 . ( 2 ) 이에 관하여 피고는 처분사유 5는 ' 시정을 요구하여도 시정할 수 없는 것이 명백한 경우 ' 에 해당한다고 주장하므로 살펴본다 .

The defendant seems to have invested a large amount of money as to the grounds 5 for disposition without the resolution of the board of directors, which caused a loss to the school juristic person.

In principle, if the property management is at issue without a resolution of the board of directors, it can be restored to its original state by demanding the following approval from the board of directors as seen earlier, and if it is evident that the responsible person is responsible for investment losses, it can be restored to its original state by enforcing the liability for damages to the responsible person, and it cannot be readily concluded that there is no effectiveness of the request for correction or that it is evident that the said amount is not effective

However, it is difficult to recover money equivalent to appraised losses from related persons, since the investment period for an investment association has not expired at the time of request for correction, and the scope of investment losses has not been determined, and it is difficult to recover money from related persons. Since the resolution of the board of directors after the resolution of the board of directors alone cannot be deemed that the recovery of losses was made, it is reasonable to deem that the portion of investment in an investment association among grounds 5 can be deemed as a ground for disposition even if there is no request for correction. This is irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s implementation of warning measures against some related persons.

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, the part of the purchase of golf club membership among the grounds for disposition 5 can not be used as the grounds for disposition, and only the investment part of the investment association can be used as the grounds for disposition.

6) On September 1, 2010, 201, the fact relevance (A) recognizing the grounds for the disposition (a) as to the unjust use of the general minister for profit-making basic property (ab) was recognized as the grounds for the disposition (ab) and retired from office on May 29, 2012. (b) An educational foundation leased 500 prudent rooms from the educational foundation from July 2010 to June 2012 to the educational foundation as the mission of the president’s office. (c) A school foundation set the passenger room management fee at KRW 2750,000 per ordinary monthly management fee at KRW 2.5,000 per office from December 30, 2010 to June 2012.

24. By the end, 66,039, and 240 won were disbursed from the account of the expenses for the school of the Dog University. (D) A lawsuit was paid as management expenses from June 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012, which was later retired, and KRW 1,432,00, which was less than KRW 2,750,000 for ordinary monthly management expenses, and KRW 1,432,00 for the total monthly management expenses. (e) Around July 2010, the occupancy of KRW 500 was completed, and the rest of the guest room was left as a public room.

[Grounds for recognition] Each statement on Gap's evidence Nos. 29 through 32 and the purport of argument (2) determination (a) is unclear that the defendant's ground for revocation of taking office is about six. However, it appears that the plaintiff gives unfair preference to the school juristic person without the resolution of the board of directors, and caused losses to the school juristic person. First, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff's provision of the above 50-type office was about the honorary treatment of the president, and it is difficult to conclude that the 500-type office of the president's office is for a profit-making business to lease the elderly facilities planned for the 50-type office of the president, and that the school juristic person entered into the 50-type office of the 50-type office of the 50-type office of the 50-type office of the 50-year office of the 50-year office of the 50-year office of the 50-year office of the 50-year office of the 50-year office of president.

B) Sub-committee

Therefore, it can not be considered as the reason for cancellation of approval of taking office.

7 ) 이사장 수익용 기본재산 임의 사용 부당 ( 처분사유 7 ) 에 관하여가 ) 시정요구사항이 모두 이행되었는지 여부 ( 1 ) 인정되는 사실관계 ( 가 ) 피고는 처분사유 7과 관련하여 감사결과처분서에서 ① 전 사무국장 △△△ , 전 사무국장 □□□, 전 사무국부장 ■■■ 에 대한 경고 ( 각 퇴직으로 불문 ) 및 전 사무국부장 참여 ▼▼▼, 전 법인과장 참사 →→→→, 전 법인과장 참사 〈 〈, 법인과장 참사 ▲▲▲에 대한 경고, ② 원고가 0000 4501호를 임의 사용한 기간의 관리비 80, 453, 000원을 회수하여 수익사업 ( 더 클래식 500 ) 회계로 세입조치, ③ 원고가 0000 4501호를 임의 사용한 기간의 임대료 639, 000, 000원을 징수하여 수익사업 ( 더 클래식 500 ) 회계로 세입 조치, ④ 0000 4501호에 설치하였다가 감사일 현재까지 확인되지 않았던 비품 15개를 회수하거나 그에 상당하는 금액을 원고 등 관련자들로부터 회수하여 법인 회계에 정산 조치를 할 것을 요구하였다 . ( 나 ) 학교법인은 ① 각 퇴직으로 불문하는 자들을 제외한 나머지, 즉 ▼▼▼, → →→→, , ▲▲▲에 관하여 모두 경고 조치를 하고, ② 2014. 3. 14. 기간별 회계구분에 의거하여 원고로부터 80, 453, 000원을 회수하여 22, 969, 000원은 □□ AMC 회계로, 57, 484, 000원은 법인일반회계로 각 세입조치하고, ③ 2014. 3. 14. 원고로부터 임대료 명목으로 639, 000, 000원을 회수하여 법인일반회계로 세입조치하고, ④ 비품 15개 중 홈네트워크 시스템은 현장에 설치되어 있고 2개 물품은 보관하고 있음을 확인하고 , 찾지 못한 12개 품목은 시중 가액인 1, 085, 680원을 원고로부터 회수한 뒤, 피고에게 시정요구를 모두 ' 이행완료 하였다고 보고하였다 .

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings (2)

According to the above facts, the school juristic person received warning and recovered all the money pointed out to have been divulged in response to the defendant's request for correction, and the school juristic person completed the implementation of the request for correction [it seems reasonable in light of the plaintiff's method of accounting management].

Meanwhile, if the act of the Plaintiff’s violation of the Private School Act is to the extent of criminal act, it does not constitute restitution. However, the Plaintiff’s submission of written opinions and related materials during the hearing procedure and used them for a public purpose (No. 75). According to the submitted materials, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s change is false, and if it is deemed as at the time of the disposition of this case, it is necessary to clarify the facts through additional investigation because it is not clearly confirmed that the Plaintiff committed the above illegal act. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the implementation of the above corrective request alone is impossible to restore to its original state, and it does not constitute a case where the Defendant did not request correction pursuant to Article 9-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, and it does not constitute a case falling under subparagraph 3 of the same paragraph for the same reason.

B) Sub-committee

따라서, 처분사유 7에 관하여는 학교법인이 이에 관한 피고의 시정요구에 응하여 그 이행을 완료하였고, 그러한 이행만으로는 충분한 원상회복이 이루어지지 않았다고 단정할 수도 없으므로, 실질적인 처분사유가 인정되는지 여부에 관하여 더 나아가 살펴볼 필요 없이 원고에 대한 임원취임승인 취소의 처분사유로 삼을 수 없다 . 8 ) 법인 수익사업체 직원 허위채용 등 ( 처분사유 8 ) 에 관하여가 ) 처분사유 인정 여부 ( 1 ) 인정되는 사실관계 ( 가 ) 학교법인은 2007년경 □□대학교 축산대학 파주 실습목장으로 사용되던 부지를 골프장으로 개발하기로 결정하고 허가를 받아 공사를 진행하였다 ( 스마트 KU 골프 파빌리온, 이하 ' 이 사건 골프장 ' 이라 한다 ) . ( 나 ) ↑↑↑, I J J, thes, ↑ ↑↑, 《 《 《, ≫≫≫, √√√ ( 이하 ' ↑↑↑ 등 ' 이라 한다 ) 는 골프장 부지 중 일부 토지 ( 파주시 법원읍 삼방리 ) 에 관하여 ' 자신들의 선조가 그에 관한 소유권을 인정받았음에도 대한민국 소유인 것처럼 등기가 경료되었다 ' 는 이유로 2007. 11. 26. 대한민국을 상대로 소유권보존등기의 말소등기절차 등을 구하는 소 ( 서울중앙지방법원 2007가단427827 ) 를 제기하여 승소판결을 선고받고 위 판결이 그대로 확정되었다 .

학교법인은 위 소송에서 독립당사자참가를 하였으나 각하되자, ↑↑↑ 등을 상대로 점유취득시효를 주장하며 소유권이전등기청구의 소 ( 서울중앙지방법원 2008가합 76940 ) 를 제기하였으나 2009. 4. 30. 패소 판결을 선고받았고, 이에 서울고등법원 2009나 46851호로 항소, 대법원 2010다50700호로 상고하였으나 그 판결이 그대로 확정되었다 . ( 다 ) ↑↑↑ 등의 토지는 준공된 골프장 한복판인 10, 11번 홀에 해당한다. 학교법인은 2009. 8. 21. 파주시로부터 사업부지 내 사유지에 대하여 토지사용권 또는 소유권을 확보하는 것을 조건으로 실시계획인가를 받았고, 2011. 11. 1. 민원 발생 시 학교법인의 책임 하에 처리할 것을 조건으로 체육시설업 조건부등록을 받아 골프장 영업을 시작하였다. 그러나 ↑↑↑ 등이 토지를 학교법인에 매도하는 것을 거부하고 파주시에 민원을 제기하면서 학교법인은 정상적으로 골프장을 운영하지 못하게 되었다 . ( 라 ) ↑↑↑ 등은 토지 매매대금으로 최초 150억 원까지 요구하였으나, 협의를 통하여 총 44억 원에 토지를 매도하되 4억 원은 ↑↑↑, ~ ~ ~, CF 3명 ( 이하 ' ↑ ↑ ↑ 외 2명 ' 이라 한다 ) 이 1 ~ 2년간 이 사건 골프장에 형식적으로 채용되어 인건비 명목으로 지급하여 줄 것을 요구하였다 .

이에 따라 학교법인은 2012. 6. 19. ↑↑↑ 등과 사이에, 위 세 필지를 매수하기로 매매계약을 체결하고, 2012. 7. 13. 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다. 학교법인은 총 매매대금 44억 원 중 40억 원은 소유권이전등기를 마치면서 지급하였고, ↑↑↑ 외 2명에 대하여 2012. 8. 1. 부터 2013. 11. 30. 까지 합계 323, 073, 000원을 급여 및 사회보험료 형식으로 지급하였다 .

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 50 through 53, and the purport of the whole pleadings (2) shall be determined.

The financial and accounting rules of private school institutions stipulate matters necessary for the financial and accounting operation of corporations and schools established and operated by them pursuant to the provisions of Article 32, Article 33, and the proviso of Article 51 of the Private School Act (Article 1); the financial and accounting of corporations and schools shall be operated in a sound manner; national policies and society shall not be contrary to the obligations of the State and society as public institutions; and the expenditure budget of the accounts of corporations shall not be used for any purpose other than its original purpose (Article 21(1)).

이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 학교법인은 ↑↑↑ 등의 요구에 따라 허위로 ↑↑↑ 외 2명을 직원으로 채용하고, 급여 명목으로 매매대금을 지급하였다. 이러한 학교법인의 지출은 국민건강보험법이나 국민연금법에 위반한 것으로 볼 수 있고, 동시에 사학기관 재무 · 회계규칙에서 정한 재무와 회계운영의 기본원칙 ( 제4조 ), 예산의 목적 외 사용금지를 규정한 제21조 제1항도 위반한 것이다. 사학기관 재무 · 회계규칙은 사립학교법에 근거하고 있으므로, 결국 사학기관 재무 · 회계규칙의 위반은 사립학교법 제20조의 2 제1항 제1호에서 정한 사립학교법 규정의 위반에 해당한다 .

B) Whether there was no demand for correction or all of them have been complied with;

갑 제1호증의 2, 갑 제5호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고는 처분사유 8에 관하여 감사결과처분서에서 ① 전 사무국장 □□□을 중징계 ( 퇴직으로 불문 ), 전 사무국부장 ■■■을 경징계 ( 퇴직으로 불문 ), ② 법인과장 참사 ▲▲▲에 대한 경고, ③ 법인 수익사업체에 허위 채용된 ↑↑↑ 외 2명으로부터 급여 323, 073, 000원을 회수하여 법인 수익사업 ( SMART KU 골프 파빌리온 ) 회계로 세입 조치, ④ 법인 수익사업체에 허위 채용된 ↑↑↑ 외 2명의 임용을 무효 또는 취소할 것을 처분사항으로 들어 시정요구한 사실, 학교법인은 ▲▲▲에 대한 경고 조치를 하고 , ↑↑↑ 외 2명에 대하여 2014. 1. 23. 및 2014. 2. 7. 급여 반환을 요청하고 2014. 3 .

13. Seoul Central District Court 2014Kahap101604 filed a lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment and February 2014.

5. It is recognized that the notice of cancellation of appointment is given.

그러나 학교법인은 시정기한인 2014. 3. 19. 까지 실제로 ↑↑↑ 외 2명에 대하여 급여를 회수하지는 못하였는바, 구 사립학교법 제20조의2 제2항에서 말하는 ' 시정요구에 응하지 아니한 경우 ' 에는 관할청의 시정 요구를 애초부터 거부한 경우뿐만 아니라 시정에 응한 결과가 관할청의 시정 요구를 이행하였다고 보기에 미흡한 경우도 포함된다고 해석함이 상당하므로 ( 대법원 2007. 7. 19. 선고 2006두19297 전원합의체 판결 등 참조 ), 학교법인이 ↑↑↑ 외 2명으로부터 급여 상당의 돈을 회수하기 위하여 노력하였다는 사정만으로는 그에 관한 피고의 시정 요구에 응하였다고 볼 수 없으며 , 다만 그러한 사정은 피고의 이 사건 처분이 재량권을 일탈 · 남용하였는지 여부를 판단할 때 고려될 수 있을 뿐이다 .

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, the 8th reason for the disposition can be the reason for the cancellation of the approval of taking office against the plaintiff.

9) The recognition of the grounds for disposition (A) as to whether it is recognized as the grounds for disposition (A) of the affiliated middle school teachers’ contract and the unfair execution (a) of the affiliated middle school teachers’ contract (a) (a) on April 27, 2011, the school foundation conducted a bid to select a company that will construct new construction of high school and high school teachers (a total floor area of 12, 469m2, 01m2, 12, 469m2, hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”). A school foundation has planned a construction period for 14 months, has planned a bid for 14 months, has awarded a bid to only the relevant bidder, has been awarded a bid for 2 or more bidding, and at the time of tender, the lowest bidder shall be selected as the first bidder at the time of tender. In addition, if the successful bidder is not selected at the meeting, a bid shall be re-tender and a subsequent bid shall be decided, and the method of public announcement shall not be made in the same condition.

School juristic persons set the estimated construction cost as KRW 11,953,00,000, which is up to 70% of the design amount, and the estimated bid price was determined as KRW 9,350,00,00 (including value-added tax).

In the tender conducted on April 27, 2011, the plan plan for the settlement of disputes was submitted in 11,89,99,910,000 won, and the plan for the settlement of disputes was submitted in 11,60,000 won, and each bid price was submitted in 00 won.

The school foundation, among both companies, has negotiated with Lihee Construction Co., Ltd., which is the lowest bidder, entered into a contract of KRW 9,350,00,00, which is the estimated price on June 11, 2013. (b) On the other hand, the school foundation did not separate electrical construction and information and communications construction works from the contract of construction as above, and did not settle the total amount of KRW 117,397,00,000 in the statutory expenses, such as national health insurance premiums, KRW 45,594,00 in the course of paying the completion price.

[Grounds for recognition] Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 54 through 58 and the overall purport of the pleadings (2) are examined as to the selection of the executing company and the successful bid rate of the instant construction project (A). This part of the grounds for disposition is premised on the application of "Articles 14 and 18 of the Guidelines for the Purchase Contracts at △ University" to the school juristic person, but it is not immediately applicable to the purchase contract work of the school juristic person, since the purpose of the △ University's purchase contract work outline is to establish standards and procedures for the performance of the purchasing contract at △ University (Article 1). In addition, Article 35 of the Financial and Accounting Rules of the private school institution provides that a certain construction contract should be put into general competition when entering into a construction contract, and it does not impose any special restrictions on retender, etc., so it is difficult to view that the school juristic person violated Article 2 of the Private School Act's new construction project law without any significant interference with Article 10 (2) of the Framework Act.

B) Sub-committee

Therefore, Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that the grounds and reasons for the disposition shall be presented to the parties when an administrative agency makes a disposition (a) whether the grounds for the disposition is acceptable (i) whether the grounds for the disposition are procedural defect recognition (non-performance of the audit result) or not. (b) Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that the administrative agency shall exclude arbitrary decisions of the administrative agency and allow the parties to properly cope with them in the administrative remedy process. Thus, the purpose of this provision is to comprehensively consider the contents and relevant laws and regulations as well as the overall process until the disposition is made, and it is sufficiently known that the grounds and reasons for the disposition were made by the parties at the time of the disposition, and it is deemed that there were no particular obstacles to moving to the administrative remedy procedure, and thus, it cannot be said that the disposition is unlawful due to improper disposal of the basic property and for profit-making business of the United States (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du328, Dec. 10, 2009).

However, considering that the above 10 grounds for disposition were 5 reasons for the above 7th administrative disposition, the defendant pointed out the facts and applied laws and regulations of the 10th administrative disposition, and the overall process of the disposition of this case including the 3,5, 7, 10, 1820 of the 10th administrative agency's 7th administrative disposition, and the 3th administrative agency's 7th administrative disposition's 4th administrative disposition's 7th administrative disposition's 7th administrative disposition's 7th administrative disposition's 7th administrative disposition's 10th administrative disposition's 7th administrative disposition's 7th administrative disposition's 7th administrative disposition's 7th administrative disposition's 10th administrative disposition's 7th administrative disposition's 7th administrative disposition's 10th administrative disposition's 7th administrative disposition's 7th administrative disposition's 9th administrative disposition's 2th administrative disposition's 7th administrative disposition's 2nd administrative disposition's 3th administrative disposition'.

In light of the above 12 points as the grounds for disposition and other 12 points as well as the above 12 points as the 12 points as the 12 points as the 12 points as the 94 points as the 94 points prior to the hearing, the 12 points as the 94 points as the 94 points as the 94 points as the 94 points as the 12 points as the 12 points as the 12 points as the 12 points, the 12 points as the 12 points as the 9 point as the 94 point as the 94 point as the 94 point, the 12 points as the 12 points as the 12 points as the 9 point as the 9 point as to the 12 points as the 9 point as the 9 point as to the 12 points as the 9 point as the 19 point as the 19 point as the 12 points as the 3 reasons for the 9 additional notice as the 9 reasons for the 3 reasons for the 3 reasons for the 9 additional notice.

Therefore, it can not be said that the plaintiff failed to comply with the request for corrective action on the grounds of additional disposition is the reason for cancellation of approval of taking office.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the 10th reason for the disposition can not be considered as the reason for the disposition of the approval of taking office against the plaintiff without undergoing the hearing procedure.

B) Whether the grounds for disposition are recognized (1) the legal doctrine premised on (1)

If an officer fails to comply with a request for correction according to the result of audit and inspection, this is not in compliance with an order issued by the competent agency under Article 20-2 (2) of the Private School Act, and can be the ground for disposition for cancellation of approval of taking office under Article 20-2 (1) 1 of the Private School Act. The request for correction is not necessarily necessary for the relevant officer’s illegal act. However, in light of the relationship between the language of the main sentence of Article 20-2 (1) of the Private School Act and other grounds for disposition, it should be the case where the relevant officer has the authority to implement the request for correction as it concerns the matters recognized as the grounds for disposition under each subparagraph of Article 20-2 (

처분사유 3에 관한 시정요구사항 중 이행되지 않은 부분은 ' ■■■ 에게 초과지급한 명예퇴직수당 140, 994, 000원을 ■■■으로부터 회수하여 법인회계에 세입조치하기 바람 ' 부분인데, 처분사유 3 중 ■■■에 관한 부분이 사립학교법 제20조의2 제1항 각호의 처분사유에 해당하지 않는다는 점은 앞서 본 바와 같다. 처분사유 6, 9 역시 사립학교법 제20조의2 제1항 각호의 처분사유에 해당하지 않는다는 점은 앞서 본 바와 같다. 따라서 위 각 처분사유에 관한 피고의 시정요구사항이 이행되었는지 여부와 무관하게 이를 원고에 대한 임원취임 취소의 처분사유로 삼을 수 없다 .

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, the result pointed out in the 10th reason for the disposition can not be considered as the reason for cancellation of taking office against the plaintiff.

11) Sub-determinations

Ultimately, among the instant disposition grounds, the grounds for the revocation of the approval of taking office against the Plaintiff are limited to the grounds for disposition 3 (unfair dismissal from office by a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of a member of the financial organization

(c) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused;

1) Criteria for determining deviation and abuse of discretion

A disposition to revoke approval of taking office under Article 20-2 of the Private School Act constitutes a punitive administrative disposition. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the generally accepted social norms or not shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du7138, Feb. 5, 2002; 2006Du19297, Jul. 19, 2007, etc.).

In addition, the degree of illegality and illegality of the "matters pointed out as a result of the comprehensive audit that the defendant did not consider as the reason for the original disposition" or "matters for which the defendant could not use as the reason for the disposition" should not be considered in the determination of abuse of discretion of the approval of the taking office, and among "matters for which the defendant failed to comply with the request for corrective action" should not be considered in the determination of abuse of discretion of the above disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7138, Feb. 5, 2002). However, the scope and degree of non-performance of the request for corrective action as the reason for the disposition, and the contents and result of the violation for which the request for corrective action was made, can be a reason for consideration (see Supreme Court Decision 2014

4. See Supreme Court Decision 2011Du6431 decided April 19, 201

2) In the instant case, the grounds for revocation of taking office against the Plaintiff among the grounds for the instant disposition are limited to the three grounds for disposition such as the part on terms and conditions, the part on terms and conditions, and the part on investment associations among the grounds for disposition 5, and the grounds for disposition 8. Therefore, in determining whether to abuse discretion on the instant disposition, only the circumstances as to the grounds for the instant disposition are considered, and the remaining grounds for disposition are not considered.

Therefore, according to the facts acknowledged earlier and the evidence adopted, ① the small portion of the grounds for disposition 3 appears to have been based on the opinion of the board of directors rather than acceptance of the resignation on the basis of the Plaintiff’s opinion. ② Of the grounds for disposition 3, it is reasonable to view that the resignation was accepted in consideration of the working conditions between the Plaintiff, and (i) the Plaintiff was indicted on the charge of occupational embezzlement (in accordance with the evidence No. 47, the Plaintiff was not yet found guilty). ③ The amount of embezzlement was immediately returned from Doggary, ③ the violation of the procedure that did not go through a resolution of the board of directors. However, considering the rate of return of investment in the investment association in the instant case after the instant disposition, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have caused damage to the school juristic person as a result, and the Korean Teachers’ Mutual Aid Association is also difficult to view that the decision on investment itself was significantly unfair, ④ the Plaintiff’s request for corrective measures to reduce the loss of each school juristic person’s office due to the lack of reasonable demand for such corrective measures.

On the contrary, the instant disposition is a deprivation of the position of the chief director, resulting in a significant change in the management rights of the school juristic person, and the Plaintiff is subject to serious restrictions, such as taking office as a director, auditor, etc. for the next five years, or not being appointed as a principal. The instant disposition is deemed to significantly infringe the Plaintiff’s private interest and the autonomy of private schools compared to the importance of the grounds for the instant disposition and the public interest to be achieved through the instant disposition. Therefore, it is unlawful by abusing the discretionary authority

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Seo Seo-dae and Seo-dae

Judge Voluntary Award