2. Of the appeal costs, the part pertaining to the intervention by the Plaintiff Intervenor shall be the Intervenor.

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of some contents as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this part is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The following shall be added to the fifth fifteenth day below the judgment of the first instance.

【P. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming revocation of the disposition of dispersion rendered by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, separate from this case. The Seoul Administrative Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim by the judgment of December 11, 2014, and the Seoul Administrative Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim by the Seoul High Court, but the Seoul High Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 25, 2015. The Plaintiff re-appealed by the judgment of December 10, 2015, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the judgment of December 2015Du50801 Decided December 10, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is, by dismissing the appeal by the judgment of December 10, 2015.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The instant corrective order to succeed to the illegality and defects of the instant corrective order is unlawful for the following reasons.

① Ordering revocation of credits and degrees in the instant corrective order is to be cancelled after the completion of the pertinent corrective order, and it is not included in the concept of corrective order under Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act. Therefore, the instant corrective order was issued without any legal basis.

② The instant corrective order was issued from 2004 to 2011, with poor management of school affairs, such as the implementation of the instant major lectures only on the second and fourth Saturdays, and thus, D required D to attend the instant major subject and cancel the degree of 198 major credits and degrees granted a master’s degree. The Board of Audit and Inspection conducted an investigation only on the current state of the class of the school year 201 and did not completely investigate the current state of the school affairs prior to 2010. Accordingly, the Defendant issued the instant corrective order without any further investigation.