교습비등조정명령취소
1. The part against Plaintiff A in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant on July 10, 2012, the plaintiff A-.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition of some contents as follows. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The third fourth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is that “A, etc.” in the fourth sentence is “science, etc.”; “Enforcement Decree” in the third sentence is “Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25375, Jun. 11, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply)”; and the third sentence “ June 5, 2012” in the following sentence is “ June 5, 2012.” On the fourth fifth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the succeeding intervenor A acquired a foreign language institute operated by Plaintiff A from the Plaintiff, and then registered the establishment and operator of the private teaching institute in his/her name on June 30, 2014; accordingly, from the first sentence of the trial on December 19, 2014 to the first day of the trial on December 19, 2014, the succeeding intervenor made a statement in the instant lawsuit by obtaining the consent of the Defendant in the instant lawsuit; and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor A made a statement in the instant lawsuit.
”를 추가한다. 제1심 판결 제11쪽 열두째 줄의 “원고를 등”을 “원고들 등”으로, 열셋째 줄의 “변경등록(신고)를”을 “변경등록(신고)을”로 각 고친다. 제1심 판결 제13쪽 열아홉째 줄의 “156원(15.% 인상)”을 “156원(15.0% 인상)”으로 고친다. 제1심 판결 제15쪽 아래에서 여섯째 줄의 “수강료가 돠하다는”을 “수강료가 과다하다는”으로 고친다. 제1심 판결 제18쪽 열두째 줄의 “판단하깅 위한”을 “판단하기 위한”으로, 열넷째 줄의 “보인다.
“I” shall read “I”.
However, it is in itself to determine whether the amount of 70% of the tuition fees from the lowest tuition fees to the highest tuition fees as a result of the above-mentioned standard teaching of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, which is higher than the standard set by the defendant, is excessive.