2015Nu61230 Demanding the revocation of revocation of approval to dismiss a director appointment;

A

The Minister of Education

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap57949 decided September 17, 2015

December 11, 2015

January 8, 2016

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim

On March 10, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision that the part against the Plaintiff is revoked among the disposition of rejection of approval for the appointment of a director against a school juristic person B.

Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of this Court’s judgment to this case, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of

2. Additional determination by this Court

In the grounds of appeal, the defendant asserted that "the plaintiff was a director of the school foundation B at the time of submitting a detailed implementation plan for the normalization plan only after it was made on November 7, 2014 when the school foundation B had eight executives including the chairperson, etc. at the beginning on November 4, 2014, and when submitting the defendant's request to submit the plan for normalization of university operation, the plaintiff was a director of the school foundation B at the time of the submission of the plan for normalization plan. Therefore, the plaintiff is liable for the strike, etc. of school administration with other directors, and therefore, it constitutes a person whose appointment approval was revoked."

The above assertion made by the defendant in this court is not different from the defendant's assertion in the first instance court. However, even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court is examined, the defendant's above assertion is rejected, and the judgment of the first instance court, which accepted the plaintiff's claim, is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable. The judgment of the court of first instance, which accepted the plaintiff's claim, is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are borne by the losing defendant.

For the same judge of the presiding judge;

Judge Shin Jae-hun

For the purpose of judge sex impulse