2020Guhap54517. Invalidity, etc. of a designation restriction on financial support

February 26, 2021

March 19, 2021

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part regarding the application for new government-funded projects and the restriction on support, the restriction on national scholarships I, the restriction on the invalidation of restriction on the general repayment of school loans, the restriction on the application for new government-funded projects and the restriction on the application for new support, the restriction on the first type of national scholarships, and the revocation of restriction on the general repayment of school loans, among the dispositions on the designation of the type of university with restriction on financial support as of November 19, 2019, among the dispositions on the designation of the type of university with restriction on financial support as of September 4, 2018.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On September 4, 2018, the Defendant confirmed that the designation of the university type with restriction on financial support (15% recommendation compared to the fixed number of admission in 2018, restriction on application and support for government financial support projects, restriction on the I type of national scholarship, and restriction on the general repayment of school loans) is null and void.

Preliminaryly, the Defendant’s decision on November 19, 2019 on the designation of university type with respect to the president of K University(15% recommendation to reduce the fixed number of admission in comparison with the fixed number of admission in 2018, restrictions on application and support for new government financial support projects, restriction on the I type of national scholarship, and restriction on the general repayment of school loans) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 18, 2017, the president of the K University, the president of the K University, and the I University, expected to be in harmony with the Defendant, requested the exclusion from the examination of the basic capacity of the K University in 2018, and submitted an application for the approval of the establishment and closure on December 18, 2017. On January 19, 2018, the Defendant notified the president of the K University to be included in the subject of the examination of basic capacity of the university in 2018. On February 14, 2018, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for the establishment and closure of K University and the I University on the ground that the application for the establishment and closure of the K University constitutes an application by a non-authorized person upon the application of a temporary directors system corporation, and thus the approval is not granted.

B. After the Plaintiff’s regular board of directors passed a resolution on the establishment and closure of K University and university, Plaintiff A applied for approval on August 23, 2018, and the Defendant approved the above establishment and closure on January 29, 2019.

C. On September 4, 2018, the Defendant: (a) conducted the examination of the basic capacity of the university in 2018 on September 4, 2018, on the ground that the K University was classified as “A type of the university limited to financial support”, and (b) discovered that the president of K University took the following structural reform measures against K University (hereinafter “instant first notice”).

The ratio of recommendation to reduce the admission quota: 2018* 15% (including states, fields)* 2018 based on the results of the examination of basic capacity of the university in 2018: Restriction on Government Financial Support Project: (existing) Continuation of Support and New Application and Restriction on Support : Restrictions on Support : Continuation of Project in the course of implementation by the university in the course of implementation by the university in the course of implementation by the university in the course of implementation in accordance with the plan; but (2020), the decision on whether to continue support according to the plan was made by the university in the course of implementation of the supplementary evaluation : (Supplementary evaluation in 2020) the primary beneficiary of the project in the 2018 project is an external institution or most of the project costs are spent for the program operation of the external institution or personal training of the external institution, regardless of the condition of the university in the university in the 2018, the government agency in charge is excluded from the national scholarship subject to suspension by 20% of the general loan and evaluation 20%.

D. On April 10, 2019, the president of K University sent a public notice to the Defendant to the effect that he/she would revoke the designation of a university subject to restriction on financial support. On November 19, 2019, the Defendant notified the president of K University of the fact that the same measure as the result of the examination of the basic university capacity of K University in 2018 applies to the year 2020, and that the restriction on the establishment of government fiscal branch shall continue to apply to the restriction on new application and support, and that the restriction on the general repayment of the national scholarship type I and the general repayment of the school loan (50% of the acquisition of the national scholarship) shall be postponed by the time of supplementary evaluation in 2020 (hereinafter “instant notice”).

E. On September 1, 2020, the Defendant, as a result of the implementation of the supplementary evaluation in 2020, notified the president of K University of the fact that the measures to restrict financial support for K University (limited to government financial support projects, national scholarships and school loans) were cancelled in 2021, and that the recommendation to reduce the admission quota is maintained as it is.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 17 through 20, and 24, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Determination on the main defense of this case

1) Summary of Defendant’s defense

① The Plaintiff K University Professors’ Council and the Plaintiff K University’s Total Students’ Council have no standing to sue on the First Notification as there is no individual, direct, and specific legal interest in the First Notification.

② Of the instant notice No. 1, the restriction on national scholarships II types and the restriction on the general repayment of school loans was postponed until the supplementary evaluation in 2020, this part merely gave a prior guidance on the restriction that may take place in the future. Moreover, among the instant notice No. 1, the recommendation on the reduction of the fixed number of admission by 15% compared to the fixed number of admission in 2018 is merely a recommendation. Therefore, among the instant notice No. 1, the restriction on the reduction of the fixed number of admission by 15% compared to the fixed number of admission in 2018, the restriction on the national scholarship I types, and the restriction on the

③ On November 19, 2020, K University applied to the Defendant for postponement of evaluation on the ground that it was a two-year university after the completion of the formation, and is expected to be excluded from the evaluation of the universities subject to restriction on financial support in 2021. As such, it was no disadvantage due to the recommendation to reduce the admission quota of 15% compared to the admission quota in 2018. The Defendant decided on September 1, 2020 not to restrict the application and support of government financial support projects, to restrict the national scholarship I type, and to restrict the general repayment of school loans, there is no benefit in protecting rights. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs do not have a benefit in dispute over the instant notification.

2) Determination

A) Whether the plaintiff is standing to sue

A third party, who is not the other party of an administrative disposition, is entitled to file a revocation lawsuit in which legal interests protected by the relevant administrative disposition are infringed. Legal interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and relevant laws and regulations, which are not protected by the law and regulations based on the relevant disposition, are the legal interests protected by the law and regulations based on the relevant disposition, which are not protected by the law and regulations based on the relevant disposition, but are clearly protected by the relevant laws and regulations based on a series of stages of phased dispositions in order to achieve the administrative purpose of the relevant disposition, and the legal interests which are protected by the relevant laws and regulations, which are not explicitly protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations based on the relevant disposition, are interpreted to include the purpose of protecting individual, direct, and specific interests, which are not the protection of pure public interests (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du3044, Sept. 12, 2013).

Article 31(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that the autonomy of a university shall be guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by Act. The purport of Article 31(4) is to allow university members to fully perform the functions of a university that excludes interference with external power, such as public authority, and allow university members to independently operate a university (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2005Hun-Ma1047, Apr. 27, 2006) by freely conducting research and education (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Hun-Ma1047, Apr. 27, 2006). However, teachers, the subject of academic freedom, who are teachers, are its central role, but not only teachers, such as public authority, but also employees and students, etc., who are members of a university, may become the subject of university autonomy in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1946, Jul. 23, 2015).

According to the Higher Education Act, the head of a school may enact or amend school regulations (hereinafter referred to as "school regulations") within the scope of statutes, necessary matters such as matters to be stated in school regulations, procedures for the enactment and amendment thereof shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 6). Schools shall have necessary organizations within the scope prescribed by Presidential Decree in order to achieve the purpose of establishment. The basic matters concerning the organization of private schools shall be determined by the articles of association and school regulations of the relevant school juristic person (Article 19). According to such delegation, Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act provides for matters to be stated in school regulations, such as student association (Article 10), student self-government activities (Article 16), and matters related thereto (Article 16).

Examining the above provisions and legislative purport of the Constitution and the Higher Education Act, since students, who are the subjects of right to receive education, planned to establish a faculty council composed of students’ associations organized for self-governing activities and professors, who are the subjects of freedom of learning, the statutory provisions for protecting the legal interests of students and teaching staff should also be deemed to have the role of protecting the legal interests of the students’ associations or the faculty council which function as means of realizing the autonomy of universities or the freedom of learning. Furthermore, the provisions of the articles of association of the private school statutes and the A ought to be construed as having specified the autonomy of education under Article 31(4) of the Constitution and the right to participate in school operation of the Plaintiff Council and the Plaintiff

In this premise, the Supreme Court has recognized the Plaintiff’s eligibility to dispute the appointment of a director, which is only indirectly affected by the faculty council and the total student council in relation to the participation in school operation in the above 2012du19496, and 19502. If the appointment of a director, which is only indirectly affected by the school operation or decision-making, can be contested, it is reasonable to recognize the Plaintiff’s eligibility even more than that of the person who may have an influence on the school operation or decision-making, in a case where the Minister of Education takes a disposition that directly interferes with or may have an impact on the school operation without being placed on the top of the person who may have an influence on the school operation or decision-making, as the right to participate in the school operation of the faculty council and the total student council, is more directly affected by the right to

Article 8 of the Higher Education Act provides that the State shall take necessary measures, such as reimbursement of experiment and practical training expenses, expenses for creating research, and scholarships, in order to promote academic research and educational research. In addition to the circumstances that the professor of the Korea University may be at a disadvantage that restricts application for new government-funded projects and support, and that students of the Korea University may be at a disadvantage that they would not receive scholarships or not receive school loans, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff K University Professors Council and the total student association of the Plaintiff K University have individual, direct, and specific interests to dispute the validity of the instant disposition.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's main defense is without merit.

B) Whether the applicant is eligible

(1) Of the instant notice No. 1, the restriction on national scholarship type I and the restriction on the general repayment of school loan was postponed until the supplementary evaluation in 2020. However, as long as the said restriction is not revoked due to the supplementary evaluation in 2020, the instant notice is subject to the restriction on the national scholarship type I and the restriction on the general repayment of school loan. Thus, the instant notice No. 1 ought to be the exercise of public authority directly affecting the rights of the K University or the legal interest of the K University. In short, rather than allowing the Plaintiffs to dispute the outcome of the supplementary evaluation in 2020, it accords with the principle of administration of the rule of law to resolve disputes early. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant notice No. 1 is a disposition subject to an appeal.

(2) Of the instant notice No. 1, it is reasonable to view that the part of the instant notice No. 1, which was 15% of the fixed number of admission in 2018, would directly affect the Plaintiffs’ rights or legal interests due to the foregoing part of the instant notice No. 1, is subject to a disposition of appeal litigation in 2021 and the Defendant’s safety pursuant to this part of the instant notice, on the ground that, if the university fails to perform its duty of reduction, it would be subject to the designation of a university subject to financial support restriction and the examination of its basic capacity in 2021, it would be sufficient for K University to evaluate that it would have failed to meet one index at the designation of a university subject to financial support restriction. In addition, considering that there is room for K University to be subject to a disposition similar to the instant notice No. 1 due to the designation of a university subject to financial support restriction or the reduction of its basic capacity at the time of the examination of its basic capacity in 2021.

C) Whether there exists interest in the lawsuit

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 15, 23, and Eul evidence Nos. 26 and arguments, K University applied to the defendant on Nov. 19, 2020 for postponement of the evaluation of the university in 2021 on the ground that it was a university for which two years have not passed since the completion of its organization as a school/affiliated university, and even in the above circumstances, it can participate in the examination of basic capacity of the university in 2021. In the event that K University fails to implement its recommendation for reduction of the admission quota in 15% compared to the admission quota in 2018, it can be acknowledged that it would be subject to reduction of the admission quota in 2021 from the examination of basic capacity of the university in 2021 to the maximum four points. According to the above facts, if K University participates in the examination of its basic capacity in 2021, it still has no possibility of dispute over this part of the defendant's right to appeal against the reduction of the admission quota in this case.

(2) On the other hand, according to the Defendant’s supplementary evaluation conducted on September 1, 2020, the fact that the Defendant cancelled the restriction on government funding projects, national scholarships and school loans to K University on the basis of the restriction on government funding projects, and the restriction on government scholarships and school loans in 2021 is without dispute between the parties that the restriction on government funding projects after 2021 is determined by the evaluation of basic capabilities of the university in 2021 and the evaluation of the restriction on government funding in 2021. According to the above findings, the above restriction on government funding projects among the main claims in the instant case is no longer effective since it is difficult to find materials to view that there is no possibility that the restriction on government subsidies will be repeated in the future, even if such restriction is cancelled in the future, it is difficult to view that there is no possibility that the restriction on government subsidies and loans will be repeated due to the lack of legal interest in the lawsuit (the restriction on government subsidies and loans in the future after 2021).

B. Judgment on the merits

As examined below, regarding the legitimacy of recommendation for reduction of 15% of the fixed number of admission in the year 2018 among the notice No. 1 of this case (this part of the notice No. 1 of this case is not recognized as legal interest in litigation, but should also be examined on the basis of the substance as a home).

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendant’s designation of a university with restriction on financial support, which was an influent administrative act without any legal basis, has significant and apparent defects. Moreover, the Defendant did not exclude K University from the examination of basic university capacity of 2018 without reasonable grounds despite Plaintiff A’s application for the establishment and abolition of the university, and thus violated the foregoing exclusion criteria. As such, the Defendant’s designation of a university with restriction on financial support was the primary cause for the Defendant’s appointment of a full-time director in 2010, and the Defendant’s appointment of K University as a university with restriction on financial support is attributable to the Defendant. Accordingly, the first notification of this case is null and void.

2) Determination

(1) Whether there is no legal basis for the first notice of this case’s violation of law

① According to the former Higher Education Act (wholly amended by Act No. 17492, Oct. 20, 2020; hereinafter referred to as the “ Higher Education Act”), a school shall be directed and supervised by the Minister of Education. If necessary to guide and supervise a school, the Minister of Education may request the head of the school to submit relevant data (Article 5), as prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 7(1)), and the State may support or subsidize financial resources necessary to achieve its objectives (Article 7(1)).

(2) Article 24-11 (2) of the Act on the Establishment, etc. of the Korea Student Aid Foundation stipulates that the Minister of Education may establish plans for overall operation of income contingent loans and repayment projects, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 21-5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment, etc. of the Korea Student Aid Foundation shall set the standards for establishing lending limits by high school educational institutions under Article 24-11 (2) of the Act on the Establishment, etc. of the Korea Student Aid Foundation, subject to deliberation by the Deliberation Committee for the Student Aid Foundation, and paragraph (2) of the same Article stipulates that the Minister of Education may select universities to which lending limits

③ Article 28(1) of the Framework Act on Education requires the State to establish and implement a scholarship program and school expense subsidy program for those who have difficulty in receiving education due to economic reasons. According to the former Regulations on the Management of National Scholarship Project (wholly amended by the Ministry of Education Directive No. 320, Jan. 1, 2020), the Minister of Education may reflect the characteristics, etc. by region of the relevant higher educational institution in the selection of scholarship students and the distribution of scholarships, and exclude students of some higher educational institutions and the relevant higher educational institution from those eligible for the project according to the nature of the scholarship program, and restrict the allocation of scholarships to specific higher educational institutions in consideration of the educational conditions, etc. of higher educational institutions (Article 11).

④ In full view of the language and purport of the aforementioned relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is recognized that the Defendant has the authority to comprehensively guide and supervise the Plaintiff’s university as the competent agency. Moreover, it may be recognized that the Defendant has the authority to determine whether to pay financial subsidies or scholarships and school expenses loans to the Plaintiffs, and that the Defendant has discretion not to pay if it is determined that maintaining the same financial support as the previous ones is unreasonable. Accordingly, the Defendant may give the instant notice based on the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether it is unlawful to exclude K University from the examination of its basic capacity in 2018

(A) On January 19, 2018, the fact that the Defendant notified the president of K University, on January 19, 2018, that K University was included in the subject of the examination of the basic capacity for the university in 2018 is acknowledged as follows: (a) according to the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 8, 15, and 16 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged.

① According to the plan to promote the examination of basic capacity of universities in 2018 announced by the Defendant in December 2, 2017, there is an exception to the examination of basic capacity of universities in 2018, the recommendation for reduction of the prescribed number of students and restrictions on participation in government finance projects shall be imposed even in cases where there are grounds for exception to the examination of basic capacity of universities in 2018. The Defendant explicitly stated that the Plaintiff should prepare for the examination prior to the determination of exclusion from the examination even if the application for the examination is determined in the said

② On February 14, 2018, the Defendant: (a) changed the name of a school to be run in iron and rupture as stipulated in the articles of incorporation; (b) thus, it constitutes an essential change in the purpose of establishment of a corporation; and (c) the Plaintiff’s application for consolidation between universities and colleges was determined to return the application for recognition of rupture and rupture to the effect that approval of rupture and rupture cannot be approved because it constitutes an application

③ On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff A expressed to the Defendant an intention to promote Tongmcom, regardless of whether it is exempt from the examination of basic capacity of the university in 2018.

(B) In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the Defendant’s failure to exclude K University from the examination of its basic capacity in 2018 cannot be deemed unlawful. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

① Since a broad discretion is granted to the Defendant regarding the establishment of the standards for conducting and assessing universities, barring any special circumstance to deem that a disposition in accordance with the standards is unreasonable objectively in light of the relevant statutes or the purpose and purport of the plan for promoting the examination of basic capacity of universities and colleges, it shall not be readily determined that the disposition in accordance with the standards deviates from the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power.

② The Defendant exceptionally excluded the university that applied for the examination of the basic capacity of the 2018 university from the examination of the said university. However, the Defendant stated that the university should prepare the examination prior to the determination of the exclusion from the examination even if the university applied for the examination. As such, it could be anticipated that the university may not be excluded from the examination solely on its application.

③ In addition to the university that applied for Tong-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-C-B-B-B-B-B-C-B-B-B-B-C-B-B-C-B-B-B-C-B-B-C-B-B-B-C-B-B-B-B-C-B-B-B-C-B-B-B-B-C-B-B-B-B-B-C-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B

④ Even if the Defendant was excluded from the above diagnosis, the University had the obligation to recommend the reduction of the number of students and to restrict the participation in government finance projects. However, the first notification of this case was imposed only on the recommendation for reduction of the admission quota, the obligation to restrict the general repayment of school expenses, by reservation of the State scholarship I type, and the obligation to restrict the general repayment of school expenses. Accordingly, compared to the time when the Plaintiff was excluded from the above diagnosis, the Plaintiff A did not have any other obligation and did not seem to be disadvantageous to the Plaintiffs.

(3) Whether the notice No. 1 of this case is invalid on the ground that the defendant's reason was attributable to the designated university as a university with restriction on financial support.

The Plaintiffs asserted that there was a legal dispute that the Defendant failed to comply with the procedures, etc. in relation to the appointment of directors of K University, and that the normalization of the school was delayed. However, it is difficult to deem the foregoing grounds to be null and void, and even according to the Plaintiffs’ assertion, the Defendant did not directly mislead the operation of K University, thereby not attributable to the Defendant’s low evaluation of the basic capacity of the university in 2018, which grasps the operating status of the university. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is without merit without any need to further examine the remainder of the issues.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. Determination on the main defense of this case

1) Summary of Defendant’s defense

① The Plaintiff K University Professors’ Council and the Plaintiff K University’s Total Students’ Council have no standing to sue on the instant notice No. 2 as there is no individual, direct, and specific legal interest.

② The instant notice is merely a notification given by the Defendant once again on the result of the examination of the Plaintiff’s opinion in 2018, and does not have a new legal effect. Thus, the instant notice does not constitute a disposition subject to appeal litigation, given that the restriction on the type I of national scholarships and the restriction on the general repayment of school loan, among the instant notice No. 2 notice, were suspended until the supplementary assessment in 2020, and the restriction on the general repayment of school loan was merely a prior instruction on the restriction that could be taken in the future. In addition, the instant notice No. 2 notice merely recommended the reduction of 15% of the fixed number of admission compared to the fixed number of admission in 2018 among the instant notice No. 2 notice.

③ On November 19, 2020, K University applied to the Defendant for postponement of evaluation on the ground that it was a two-year university after the completion of the formation, and is expected to be excluded from the evaluation of the universities subject to restriction on financial support in 2021. As such, it was no disadvantage due to the recommendation to reduce the admission quota of 15% compared to the admission quota in 2018. The Defendant decided on September 1, 2020 not to restrict the application and support of government financial support projects, to restrict the national scholarship I type, and to restrict the general repayment of school loans, there is no benefit in the protection of rights. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs do not have a benefit in dispute over the instant notification.

2) Determination

A) Whether the plaintiff is standing to sue

As seen earlier, there is a legal interest in dispute over the disposition related to the operation of the university not only to school juristic persons but also to the student association or the university faculty council. According to the second notification of this case, the professors of the K University may suffer disadvantages that may restrict the application for new government-funded projects and the restriction on support, and students of the K University may suffer disadvantages that may not receive scholarships or may not receive school loans. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff K University Faculty Council and the Plaintiff University total student association have a direct and specific interest in dispute over the validity of the disposition of this case.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's defense is without merit.

B) Whether the applicant is eligible

(1) In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by adding the purport of the entire pleadings, the notice No. 2 of this case is a disposition subject to appeal litigation, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s main defense is without merit.

① The same measure as the instant notification is applied to the K University. However, unlike the time of the instant notification, the K University integrated with the university, resulting in changes in human and material composition, and there was room for dispute over whether the same measure is applied to the members of the K University integrated with the K University prior to the instant notification No. 2.

② As seen earlier, recommendation to reduce the number of admission by 15% compared to the fixed number of admission in 2018 maintained by the second notification, new application and support restriction for government financial support projects, restriction on the first type of national scholarships, and restriction on the general repayment of school loans directly affect the rights and obligations of the Plaintiffs. Following the second notification, the Plaintiffs, including members of I University, were obligated to perform the said measures.

③ It also accords with the principle of rule of law to ensure that the dispute should be resolved at an early stage by allowing the plaintiffs to contest the legality of the first notice prior to the subsequent 2020 complementary assessment.

C) Whether there exists interest in the lawsuit

(1) The fact that K University may participate in the examination of basic capacity of the university in 2021, and in this case, K University would be at least 4 points in the examination of basic capacity of the university in 2021 when it does not implement 15% reduction recommendation compared to the fixed number of admission in 2018, as seen earlier. As such, among the notice No. 2 of this case, there exists a possibility of being disadvantaged due to the recommendation of 15% reduction of the fixed number of admission in 2018, and thus, there is no reason to dispute the legitimacy of this part of this case.

(2) As a result of the supplementary evaluation conducted on September 1, 2020, the Defendant lost the validity of the restriction on the application and support of government financial support projects to K University, the restriction on national scholarships I type, and the restriction on the general repayment of school loans. Accordingly, among the instant preliminary claims, the instant preliminary claims, the restriction on the application and support of government financial support projects, the restriction on national scholarships I type, and the restriction on the general repayment of school loans does not exist any longer, and thus, this part of the claim is unlawful as it has no interest in the lawsuit (it is difficult to recognize the possibility of re-issuance and the necessity of legal clarification).

B. Judgment on the merits

As examined below, regarding the legitimacy of recommendation for reduction of 15% of the fixed number of admission in 2018 among the notice of this case No. 2 notice of this case (this part of the notice of this case No. 2 notice of this case does not have interests in litigation, but should also be examined together with this part on a family basis).

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Since the K University established a new department or abolished similar or overlapping departments after consolidation, it is not the same school as the existing K University. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s maintenance of the measures following the examination of the basic capacity of the university in 2018 at the present K University should be revoked as it abused its discretion.

2) Determination

A) Whether K University at the time of notification No. 1 and K University at the time of notification No. 2 of the instant case are recognized as such

According to each description of evidence Nos. 11, 13, and 22, the following facts are recognized:

① On August 23, 2018, Plaintiff A filed an application for the consolidation with the Defendant again, added measures to protect the academic rights of students and incumbent students of the International University differently from the existing one, and supplemented the principle that Plaintiff A succeeds to 100% of the employment of teachers and employees of the International University, and confirmed the details thereof by the relevant persons and representatives of the two universities, to re-verification the principle and to consult on the details thereof.

② On September 5, 2018, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement the plan to secure the rate of securing teachers who fall short of the Plaintiff A, the detailed plan for specialization after consolidation, and the plan to expand finance after consolidation.

(3) After the integration of the K University and the university, the name of the school was maintained as K University.

④ Since the integration, Plaintiff A amended the articles of incorporation, the part of the I University, stipulated in Section C of the Articles of Incorporation, was deleted, and in principle, Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the Act on August 26, 2019, which was abolished due to the consolidation between K University and the I University, was added to the effect that the curriculum should be operated normally so that the registered students of the course of education at the I University do not suffer any disadvantage in education.

The facts of recognition and the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence: (a) Plaintiff A and the Defendant sought measures to protect the interests of members of the I University on the premise that the I University was abolished while discussing the integration between the I University and the I University; (b) along with the expression that the I University was abolished by the amended articles of incorporation; (c) due to the integration, the Plaintiff stated the Addenda to prevent the disadvantages of students of the I University; (d) all the human members and physical facilities of the existing K University are maintained in the K University after integration; and (e) if all the dispositions issued by the previous K University were denied, the beneficial disposition, other than disadvantageous disposition, should be considered to be invalid, should be considered to be more prudented in denying identity between the two because the said dispositions become invalid. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the identity of the Plaintiff’s notification and the first disposition at the I University should be recognized. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion in this part is without merit.

B) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as above, the notice Nos. 15 and 16’s respective statements and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to deem that the notice No. 2 was unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

① The second notice is based on the diagnosis of basic capabilities of universities in 2018, which was prepared for the purpose of enhancing the public nature of universities through autonomous development support of universities, expanding autonomy and enhancing the quality of education, etc., and the public interest to be achieved through the second notice is very serious.

② The Plaintiffs had already been aware of their duties due to the instant notice No. 1, and were implementing their implementation measures. The duties under the instant notice No. 2 were the same as those under such duties, and thus, they could sufficiently prepare for them.

③ On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff A notified the Defendant of the fact that he/she promoted / she was not subject to the examination of basic capacity of universities in 2018 and expressed his/her intention to de facto reduce the outcome pursuant to the instant notification.

④ In light of the fact that most restrictive measures following the second notice become invalid due to the supplement evaluation in 2020, and the Plaintiffs, as the Plaintiffs, may be excluded from the examination of basic capabilities of universities in 2021 on the ground of integration, it is difficult to deem that the second notice violated the proportionality and equity.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the application for new government support projects and the restriction on support, the restriction on the type of national scholarships, the claim to nullify the restriction on the general repayment of school loans, the restriction on the application for new government support projects and support, the restriction on the restriction on the application for national scholarships, the restriction on the national scholarships, and the claim to revoke the restriction on the general repayment of school loans with respect to the president of K University as of November 19, 2019, among the designation of university type as of September 4, 2018 of the instant lawsuit against the president of K University as of September 4, 2018, is unlawful, and each of them is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.