The purpose and scope of Article 3(1) of the Addenda to the Regulations on the Establishment and Operation of Schools of Various Levels below High School ( September 23, 1997)

The purpose of Article 3(1) of the Addenda to the Regulations on the Establishment and Operation of High Schools and Lower (hereinafter referred to as the "Operation Regulations") (hereinafter referred to as the "Operation Regulations") (hereinafter referred to as the "Operation Regulations") is to stipulate that the standards for school site and school building shall follow the Decree on the Standards for School Facilities and Equipment in cases where the existing schools, etc. continue to exist as before, and that the previous standards for the facilities shall not apply to the cases of the installer of a lifelong educational establishment including the registration of a school-type lifelong educational establishment by the new installer and the designation of a lifelong educational establishment in the recognized form of school, and that the previous standards for the facilities shall not apply to the case of the change of the installer of a lifelong educational establishment including the designation of an educational establishment in the recognized form of school.

Article 7 of the Regulations on the Establishment and Operation of Schools of each level below high schools and Article 3 (1) of the Addenda ( September 23, 1997)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2001Du9929 delivered on April 11, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1199)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeong Chang-nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

The Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education of Jeollabuk-do (Attorney Lee Jae-ju, Counsel for plaintiff)

Gwangju High Court ( Jeonju) Decision 2011Nu1042 Decided January 21, 2013

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on whether the plaintiff is a party

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that there is a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the Defendant's revocation of the designation of educational attainment facilities and the disposition of the suspension of student recruitment (hereinafter collectively referred to as "disposition in this case by adding each of the above dispositions to the Plaintiff, who actually succeeded to the status of the installer of the former Giam High School (hereinafter referred to as the "Mijuam High School"), which is a social educational establishment (hereinafter referred to as "educational establishment in the form of school" under the Lifelong Education Act) registered and designated pursuant to the provisions of the former Social Education Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6003, Aug. 31, 1999).

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the standing to sue in a lawsuit seeking revocation of administrative disposition.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on whether the instant disposition deviates from or abused discretionary power

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (1) the defendant was found to have issued the disposition of this case on the ground that it was improper for the installer of the school or the school site to manage the school site (hereinafter "the ground for Disposition 1"); (2) the ground for Disposition 1 was as to the ground for Disposition 3; (3) the ground for Disposition 1 was not legitimate before it was enacted on the ground that it was improper for the installer of the school to manage the school site (the ground for Disposition 2); and (4) the ground for Disposition 3 was not legitimate before it was enacted on the ground that it was improper for the installer of the school and the school site to manage the school site; and (4) the ground for Disposition 1 was not legitimate before it was enacted on the ground that it was inappropriate for the installer of the school (the ground for Disposition 2; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the ground for Disposition 3; and (3) the ground for Disposition 1 was not legitimate before it was established on the ground that it was not legitimate for the establishment of the school foundation and its establishment.

B. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

(1) The purport of Article 3(1) of the Addenda to the Operational Regulations of this case is to stipulate that the standards for facilities for school sites and teachers shall be governed by the Decree on Standards for School Facilities and Equipment in cases where the existing schools, etc. continue to exist as before, and that the previous standards for facilities shall not be applied to cases of the registration of a lifelong educational establishment in the form of a school and the change of installer including the designation of a recognized educational establishment by a new installer. In this case, the provisions related to the installer shall be applied as a matter of course in the facility standards for new operation regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du9929, Apr. 11, 2003). Article 7 of the Operational Regulations of this case, which applies to the standards for designation of

(2) However, according to the records, the Plaintiff, who actually takes over the status of the installer of the Jeonju Cancer, can be seen as not having ownership as to Jeonju Cancer's teacher and school site. Accordingly, the change of installer to the Plaintiff is not permitted. However, the Plaintiff actually succeeded to the installer's status on February 10, 2005 and actually has been in fact managed and operated for a considerable period from around December 7, 2010, which is the date of the instant disposition.

(3) Therefore, even if only the grounds for Disposition 1, excluding the rest of the grounds for Disposition, include only the grounds for Disposition 2 and 3, such as “the Plaintiff is not the owner of the Jeonjuamamamian teacher and the school site, which is a recognized educational establishment,” it is sufficient to deem that the instant Disposition constitutes “the case where the lifelong educational establishment has been managed and operated by unlawful means” as provided by Article 42 subparag. 3 of the Lifelong Education Act, which is the basis for the instant Disposition, so it is difficult to deem

C. Nevertheless, based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant disposition was a disposition that was abused or abused beyond the discretion’s scope, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s demand that the Plaintiff is the Jeonjuamamian teacher and the owner of the school site was not based on the relevant laws and regulations. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on deviation and abuse of discretion, thereby making judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)