종합감사결과처분 취소 청구
1. On March 11, 2015, the Defendant’s notice of disposition as a result of a comprehensive audit conducted against the Plaintiff would be accompanied by the attached Form 1’s disposition.
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiff is a school juristic person that establishes and manages the E University (former F University).
From September 15, 2014 to September 26, 2014, the Defendant issued a comprehensive audit with respect to the Plaintiff and E 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.
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 June 12, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition request”). On June 12, 2015, the Defendant changed construction costs subject to the instant disposition No. 24 dispositions from KRW 177,083,00 to KRW 172,916,000, and all of the remaining applications were dismissed.
On June 5, 2016, 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 rendered a decision of dismissal on February 2, 2016, and sent the said decision of dismissal to the Plaintiff on February 17, 2016 and received the notification by the Plaintiff around that time.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the whole purport of the pleading are as shown in attached Form 2 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.
The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the request for each disposition of this case, and G Hospital did not have any mutually agreed interest rate on the unpaid amount of the lease deposit between the Plaintiff and G Hospital. The Plaintiff unilaterally imposed the amount calculated at the rate of 4.5% to 5% per annum according to the fixed deposit interest rate, and imposed the amount calculated at the annual interest rate of 9% per annum as a matter of tax law, but the G Hospital rejected payment on the ground that the rate is too high after the payment for a certain period
Therefore, the lease deposit is guaranteed during the disposition request No. 1 of this case.