종합감사결과처분 취소 청구
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
On March 11, 2015, the defendant's comprehensive audit results against the plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates the E University (former F University; hereinafter “instant University”).
B. From September 15, 2014 to September 26, 2014, the Defendant issued a comprehensive audit to the Plaintiff and the instant university (hereinafter “instant audit”); and on March 11, 2015, notified the Plaintiff of the results of the comprehensive audit, and demanded the Plaintiff to submit the notified request within 60 days after completing the implementation of the notification.
C. On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for re-deliberation seeking revocation of the instant disposition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 14, 17, 22, 23, 24, and 25 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions request”; and individually, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-deliberation seeking revocation of the instant disposition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 14, 17, 22, 22, 23, 24, 25, and around June 2015, the Defendant changed construction costs subject to the instant disposition Nos. 24 dispositions from KRW 177,083,00 to KRW 172,916,00, and all of the remaining applications were dismissed.
On June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the same purport as stated in the purport of the instant claim. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission made a decision of dismissal on February 2, 2016, and sent the said decision of dismissal to the Plaintiff on February 17, 2016 and served the said decision on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Attached Form 2 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. Whether the instant disposition No. 1 is legitimate (A) The gist of the parties’ assertion is as follows: (a) there was no mutually agreed interest rate on the unpaid amount of lease deposit between the Plaintiff and G Hospital; and (b) there was an understanding between the parties that there was no mutual agreement on the unpaid amount of lease deposit; and (c) the Plaintiff has received the amount calculated at the rate of 4.5-5% per annum from G Hospital.
However, from July 2010 to July 201, the plaintiff is a matter of tax law.