In a case where Party A, who operated a postponed private teaching institute registered as a private teaching institute for school curriculum (including curriculum: other curriculum) pursuant to the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons, operated the private teaching institute and received a disposition of suspension of teaching for 45 days pursuant to Article 17 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons on the ground that Party A violated the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons, such as “the modification of tuition fees, etc., operation of extra-registered curriculum, and false entry of books (receipts)”, the case holding that the above disposition is lawful on the ground that Party A’s disposition of suspension of teaching fees, etc. was made within the scope of the sanctions, and the disposition was made within the scope of the sanctions standards, and it is difficult to deem that the sanctions are inconsistent with the Constitution and relevant statutes or that the discretionary authority was abused or abused because Party A

It is a case where the suspension of teaching of a private teaching institute was imposed pursuant to Article 17 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (hereinafter “Private Teaching Institutes Act”), on the ground that: (a) a person who operated a private teaching institute registered as a private teaching institute for school curriculum (including other curriculum: 10 points); (b) a person who violated the Private Teaching Institutes Act, such as “unregistered (10 points for teaching fees, etc.); (c) a teaching curriculum not registered (35 points for teaching; and (d) a false entry (5 points); and (e) a book (5 points) while operating the private teaching institute.”

In light of the purport of the provisions of the Private Teaching Institutes Act distinguishing between the curriculum of “private teaching institutes for school curriculum” and “other curriculum”, which are the curriculum of “private teaching institutes for school curriculum”, the person who operates the curriculum of “other curriculum” and “music” or “ dance” along with facilities and equipment necessary for each curriculum shall be registered multiple times, barring special circumstances. It is recognized that “A” operates the curriculum, such as “other curriculum” and “divity” other than the curriculum of registration, while operating the curriculum, and even for the common purpose of deferment, it is necessary to register multiple times without registration. Thus, it falls under the case where “a change without registration for change” under Article 17(1)6 of the Private Teaching Institutes Act or “a change without registration for change of registered matters” under Article 6(1) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act and Article 17(4) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act, regardless of whether the establishment and operator of the relevant private teaching institute arbitrarily violates the purpose of the system of registration and suspension, and thus, it is difficult to determine whether the establishment and operation of the curriculum is modified or not.

Articles 2-2(2), 6(1), 8, 12, and 17(1) and (4) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons; Article 3-3(1) [Attachment 2], (2), and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons; Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The Gangwon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Education Support Office

June 5, 2020

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's 45-day teaching suspension order against the plaintiff on June 19, 2019 (from July 5, 2019 to August 18, 2019) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates the “○○○ Private Teaching Institute” registered as a private teaching institute for school curriculum (a curriculum and other curriculum: delay) (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”) pursuant to the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (hereinafter “Private Teaching Institutes Act”).

B. On June 19, 2019, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to suspend lessons of the instant private teaching institute for 45 days pursuant to Article 17 of the Private Teaching Institutes Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the Private Teaching Institutes Act, such as “the change of tuition fees, etc. (10 points), the operation of teaching curricula (35 points), and the false entry (5 points) in the register (5 points),” while operating the instant private teaching institute (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful because there is no ground for the disposition, or it is unlawful by deviating from or abusing discretionary power, as follows.

1) The term “sovereign” is a comprehensive arts that includes drama, musical, and antipath, etc., and is established by the instant private teaching institute. The class, such as dance, visible, etc., is an essential part of the “sovereign” forum, which is a registered curriculum. Moreover, given that a certain adult subject is an admission subject, which is also included in the curriculum of school curriculum, the Plaintiff did not operate a curriculum other than the “school curriculum” registered by the Plaintiff.

2) The fact that the Plaintiff did not register the change of tuition fees or the changed tuition fees are lower than the registered tuition fees, and in light of the purport of the Private Institutes Act that intends to regulate the collection of excessive tuition fees, etc., this does not constitute “unregistered change of tuition fees, etc.” prohibited by the Private Institutes Act.

3) The Defendant made an excessive disposition against minor violations that can be corrected by administrative guidance, etc. in response to a noise complaint against the instant private teaching institute, which violates the principle of proportionality and contradicts the principle of equity in comparison with other cases of the instant private teaching institute.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether there is a ground for disposition

A) Whether the extra-registered teaching curricula are operated

(1) According to Articles 6(1) and 8 of the Private Institutes Act, a person who intends to establish and operate a private teaching institute shall be equipped with facilities and equipment in accordance with the standards by unit facility of a City/Do for each curriculum, register the curriculum, tuition fees, etc., facilities, equipment, etc., and also register the curriculum, tuition fees, etc., and modify the curriculum and tuition fees, etc. In addition, Article 12 of the Private Institutes Act provides that the founder and operator of the private teaching institute shall determine the curriculum by respecting the needs and usefulness of students. According to Article 2-2(2) of the Private Institutes Act, Article 3-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private Institutes Act, the registration of the curriculum shall be the one similar to those of the above Enforcement Decree [Attachment 2], or the one that can include the contents of the curriculum (Paragraph 2).

The registration system of a private teaching institute is intended to maintain educational systems and facilities at a certain level to substantially guarantee the right of citizens to receive education, and to provide appropriate guidance and supervision to this end by the State. In full view of these legislative intent and the above provisions, those who intend to operate two or more teaching courses must be equipped with the facilities and equipment needed for each teaching course, and the same applies even in cases where multiple different teaching curricula are established for the common purpose of entering a specific field.

(2) Meanwhile, the Enforcement Decree of the Private Institutes Act [Attachment 2] lists "music and dance" as the curriculum of "artistic learning" with regard to "private teaching institutes for school curriculum". "other teaching curricula" not listed in the said table are classified into "other curricula." With regard to "private teaching institutes for lifelong education and vocational training", the term "morical music (traditional dance, modern dance, etc.), "morical music (morical music)," "morical music (dance, musical music, etc." as the curriculum of "morical learning, etc." is listed in Article 8 of the Private Institutes Act, Article 5 [Attachment 3] and [Attachment 4] of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of Private Teaching Institutes"), and each of the "morical dance institutes for school curriculum", "morical dance", "morical music (morical music, etc.," and "morical dance (morical music, etc.," and "mar curriculum, etc., etc.," different from each of "school curriculum".

As can be seen, in light of the purport that the provisions of the Private Institutes Act clearly distinguish the “music” and “dance” from the curriculum of the “private teaching institute for school curriculum” and separately prescribes the facility standards, barring special circumstances, a person who operates the “other” curriculum and “music” or “dance” curriculum along with the facilities and equipment necessary for each curriculum shall be equipped with multiple registration.

(3) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by adding up the overall purport of pleadings to the respective statements (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) Nos. 5 through 7, and No. 4, 6, 14, and 15 of the instant case, the Plaintiff operated the curriculum, such as “music” and “dance” other than the registered curriculum, while operating the instant private teaching institute. This constitutes a case where multiple registrations are required even for common purposes of postponement, and thus, the Plaintiff’s change of the registered matter without the registration of change is without merit (However, “private teaching institutes for school curriculum” under Article 2-2(1)1 of the Private Teaching Institutes Act includes not only private teaching institutes for infants or students, but also private teaching institutes for school curriculum under Article 23 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which are beyond the scope of teaching curriculum of the instant high school, and thus, it constitutes an “a person who is enrolled in the curriculum of art and dance, etc.” or “a person who is enrolled in the curriculum of the instant high school.”

① Where there are many departments related to the extension of universities, such as film arts department, drama department, broadcasting entertainment, etc., both the “extension” and the “special skill” are evaluated by distinguishing the subjects from the “extension” and the “special skill” in the entrance examination procedure. The subject of “special skill” shows characteristics related to the postponement, such as dancing, beams, Arabics, movements, and musical music, etc. In addition, many private teaching institutes, which are designed to prepare for the smoke-related department, establish and operate the “special skill”, such as the “rest,” “div,” “div,” “div,” and “divation,” separately from the subject of “rest” (Article 6 and 7 of the A). The prior meaning of “rest” also does not necessarily involve or conceptualize the body, character, and behavior of the calendar.

② The instant private teaching institute is also a private teaching institute for school curriculum, the principal purpose of which is to prepare for the performance-related department. The Plaintiff operated the subjects of “arting dance,” “group dance,” “group dance,” and “group entertainment,” separately from the subjects of “arting,” and had a major of each subject, such as dance, dance, and visible (No. 5 and No. 6). In light of the system of the entrance of the department related to the performance-related department as seen earlier, it can be deemed that the subjects such as dance, dance, and visible are necessary to prepare for the postponement of performance. However, the teaching content constitutes “music or dance,” which is the curriculum of “private teaching institute for school curriculum” under [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Private Institutes Act, and thus, it cannot be classified as “other subjects”, and it cannot be viewed as “the curriculum of the extension of performance” as “the extension of performance of the teaching system,” and it cannot be viewed as “the extension of performance of the teaching process” as “the extension of performance of the teaching system.”

③ 그 밖에 원고의 출석부 및 온라인 광고에 비추어 보면, 원고는 ‘보컬 개인레슨’, ‘아역보컬’, ‘현대무용’, ‘댄스’, ‘취미보컬’, ‘취미댄스’, ‘기초보컬’ 등의 과목을 개설하거나 이를 개설할 목적으로 광고를 한 것으로 보인다. 그중 일부 과목은 명칭 자체를 ‘취미보컬’, ‘취미댄스’로 하여 교습대상을 ‘입시생’으로 제한함이 없이 광고를 하였고, 일부 과목은 온라인 광고에 “#취미댄스, #최신가요, #걸스힙합, #가로수길댄스, #팝송, #최신가요” 등의 해시태그를 사용하여 연기 입시와 무관하게 ‘댄스’ 또는 ‘보컬’을 배우고자 하는 학습자들을 유인하였다. 또한 이 사건 학원의 홈페이지에서는 ‘오디션 댄스’ 과목을 입시연기와 무관한 “취미반, 방송안무, 아이돌데뷔/오디션프로그램 안무수업” 등의 내용으로 소개하였다(을 제4, 6, 14, 15호증).

B) Whether the change of tuition fees, etc. is unregistered

(1) Article 6(1) of the Private Institutes Act provides that the term “tuition fees, etc.” shall be determined as the registered matters of the establishment and operation of the private teaching institute and shall be registered for the modification thereof. Article 17(1)6 of the Private Teaching Institutes Act provides that the relevant private teaching institute may order the suspension of all or part of teaching curricula for a fixed period not exceeding one year. Meanwhile, Article 17(4) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act, Article 13(4) of the Ordinance of the Private Teaching Institutes, Article 21(1) [Attachment 4] of the Regulations on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes, and Extracurricular Lessons (hereinafter “Rules of Private Teaching Institutes”) provides that the relevant private teaching institute shall impose penalty points for each frequency of repeated registration “unregistered registration, such as tuition fees,” which is a violation of Article 17(1)6 of the Private Teaching Institutes Act.

As seen earlier, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the private teaching institute registration system for the purpose of the State’s appropriate guidance and supervision and the above legal provisions, where the founder and operator of the private teaching institute changes tuition fees, etc. registered, the obligation to register the change regardless of whether the unit price is lower than the existing one, and the obligation to register the change of the system, unit price, etc., such as tuition fees, etc., may not be deemed to be arbitrarily determined whether the change

(2) Furthermore, if the purport of the Plaintiff’s argument is added to the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 10 and 11, the Plaintiff opened a 700,000 won per unit (259.25 won per unit date) subject of “enception time extension (8 teaching time extension)” on November 14, 2018, and 580,000 won per unit date (261.26 won per unit date) and 20,000 won per unit date (256.41 won per unit date) for “nception time”)” (20,000 won per unit date) for 30,000 won per unit date (256.41 won per unit date) and registered for change, and thus, the Plaintiff opened a 300,000 won or less per previous teaching time for 10,000 won or more for 10,000 won or more per unit date (36,000 won or more per day) without any change.

2) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused

According to Article 17(4) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act and Article 21(1) [Attachment 4] of the Regulations of the Private Teaching Institutes that set the detailed standards for administrative dispositions, such as the suspension of lessons, pursuant to delegation of Article 13(4) of the Ordinance of the Private Teaching Institutes, the primary violation of “unregistered registration of changes in tuition fees, etc.” shall be subject to the penalty points of 10 points, the primary violation of “out-of-registration curriculum” shall be subject to the penalty points of 35 points, and the primary violation of “out-registration curriculum” shall be subject to the penalty points of 5 points, and as long as the grounds for the above disposition are recognized (the Plaintiff does not dispute the “out-of-registration” of the Plaintiff pursuant to the above disposition standards (the Plaintiff shall be referred to as “out-of-registration”)). Meanwhile, Article 13(1) [Attachment 6] [Attachment 6] of the Ordinance of the Private Teaching Institutes may be subject to sanctions within the scope of 45 days of suspension of lessons in the section 46-50 points.

The detailed criteria for the administrative disposition of the above rules of private teaching institutes shall be the internal discretionary criteria established based on the exercise of discretionary authority in light of the form and content of the administrative disposition. The determination of the guidelines for the order of suspension of teaching belongs to the discretion of administrative agencies, so long as it is not recognized that the standards are inconsistent with the Constitution or laws or do not objectively reasonable, and thus abuse discretionary authority, the intention of administrative agencies should be respected as far as possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du17435, Jun. 19, 2017). The disposition of this case was conducted within the scope of the above sanctions, and the above sanctions were not in conflict with the Constitution and relevant statutes or it is difficult to consider that the above sanctions were in particular unreasonable. Even if the defendant neglected to guide and supervise, or actively exercised the authority to take sanctions against, the plaintiff, as alleged in the plaintiff, was filed by a noise complaint raised by the same private teaching institute, which does not actively exercise the authority to actively guide and supervise, and thus, it does not constitute deviation or abuse of discretionary authority.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge) Kim Song-chul