(a) Whether it constitutes a private teaching school prescribed by the former Private Teaching Institutes Act where ten or more persons are equipped with a facility to teach ten or more persons at the same time, but do not actually take lessons (affirmative);

(b) The meaning of "cases of conducting lessons according to the curriculum for not less than 30 days" under Article 2 of the former Private Teaching Institutes Act;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the provisions of Article 2(1) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act (Act No. 3728 of Apr. 10, 1984) and Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the number of teaching days exceeds 30 days, it appears that the number of teaching days falls under a private teaching institute prescribed by the above Act if it is equipped with facilities that enable ten or more teaching persons at the same time in light of the size of facilities, the contents of teaching, etc. of the teaching school, and it does not necessarily require ten or more persons to undergo teaching at the same time.

(b) The term "cases of conducting a teaching for not less than 30 days" means teaching according to such teaching process where the specified curricula in a private teaching school are fake for not less than 30 days, and the term "cases where the number of teaching days becomes not less than 30 days due to repeated teaching curricula" means cases where the number of teaching days becomes not less than 30 days in reality due to the same or similar teaching curricula even if the teaching curricula themselves become less than 30 days;

(a)(a) Article 2(1) of the former Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes (Law No. 3728, Apr. 10, 1984; Law No. 4106, Mar. 21, 1989). Article 2(2) of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 11665, Mar. 21, 1985)

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 89Do954 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 304) (Gong1990, 222). Supreme Court Decision 88Do1032 delivered on November 22, 1988 (Gong1989, 37) (Gong1990, 1983). Supreme Court Decision 90Do1064 delivered on November 13, 1990 (Gong191, 132)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Yoon Young-young et al.

Incheon District Court Decision 90No30 delivered on October 18, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the counsel.

Considering the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act (Act No. 3728 of Apr. 10, 1984) and Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the number of teaching days becomes 30 days or more, it shall be deemed that it constitutes a private teaching establishment prescribed by the above Act if 10 or more teaching days are installed at the same time in light of the size of its facilities and the contents of teaching, and it shall not necessarily require 10 or more teaching days in reality, and it shall be deemed that “the teaching process determined by 30 or more teaching days is conducted for 30 or more days” as stated in the judgment of the court below, and “the number of teaching days of which is 30 or more days by repeating the curriculum is 30 or more days” means the case where 10 or more teaching days by repeating the same or similar curriculum as stated in the judgment of the court below for 198Do19828, Aug. 19, 198.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)