(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.8.18. 선고 2015누57378 판결

2. Of the appeal costs, the part pertaining to participation by the Intervenor shall be borne by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the corrective order of revocation of credits and degrees against the school juristic person E-university on May 20, 2013.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered on March 1, 2006 and graduated on August 31, 2007 from E University (hereinafter referred to as the “instant school foundation”) as a master’s degree holder of “special activities” and “gifted education” or “gifted social education” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant major”).

B. The Board of Audit and Inspection sent a request for disposition of audit and inspection results to the Ministry of Education as a result of conducting an audit of "the actual condition of the implementation of creative education policies" from October 8, 2012 to November 23, 2012, according to the determination that the university of this case unfairly grants credits and degrees, and that there is an unreasonable act such as exaggeration and false disclosure of the results of securing statutory teachers, etc., and the Ministry of Education thereafter conducted an on-site investigation on the school juristic person of this case and the university of this case from May 9, 2013 to May 10, 2013.

C. On May 20, 2013, the Defendant issued a corrective order under Article 60(1) of the former Higher Education Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12036, Aug. 13, 2013; hereinafter “ Higher Education Act”) with respect to the instant school juristic person based on the said request for disposition by the Board of Audit and Inspection and on-site investigations by the Ministry of Education, and on the ground that the instant college’s master’s degree was unfairly awarded, the Defendant included a disposition ordering the revocation of the credits and master’s degree already granted to 198 graduates, including the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant corrective order”).

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, Eul's evidence Nos. 12 and 14, and the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

3. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. As to the period of filing a lawsuit and defense

1) Summary of the defense

① On June 7, 2013, the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education announced the Defendant’s corrective order of this case and the suspension of personnel procedures therefor to the schools under its jurisdiction, and notified the Defendant of the fact that the Defendant’s order of this case and the suspension of personnel procedures had been made available to the public to the public, and ② notified the teachers among the persons whose credits and degrees were cancelled through e-mail on June 11, 2013, ③ the founders of the pertinent university and G were holding a college meeting with graduates around August 2013 to prepare measures against the instant corrective order; ④ the 173 of the 198 persons subject to cancellation of credits and degrees, among the 198 persons subject to the instant corrective order, filed an application for participation in the instant case related to the instant corrective order, and the said Intervenor appears to have known the existence of the corrective order of this case to all the 198 persons subject to the foregoing, and the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of the intention to participate in the instant order of this case for the first time after the lapse of 1903 enterprisers.

2) Determination

A) A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, is in a position in which it is generally impossible to know the fact that there is a disposition. Thus, even after one year has passed from the date of the disposition, it is possible to bring an action by deeming that there is justifiable cause as stipulated in the proviso of Article 20(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, unless there is any special reason. However, if the third party is able to bring an action within the period for filing an action under Article 20(1) of the same Act, such as where he knows, or could easily know, of the fact that there is an administrative disposition, he shall bring an action within 90 days from that time, and in this case, whether there is a justifiable reason that the third party fails to observe the period for filing an action (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du3641, May 24,

B) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as seen earlier, evidence of Nos. 5, and evidence of Nos. 1 through 7 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the pleadings, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was able to file a lawsuit within the period for filing a lawsuit under Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, such as the Plaintiff was aware or could have known that the corrective order of this case was issued, and no other evidence exists to prove otherwise.

(1) The Gyeonggi-do Office of Education, through the official door on June 7, 2013, ordered the public perusal of the Defendant’s corrective order and the suspension of personnel procedures therefor to the schools under its jurisdiction. However, the Plaintiff retired on February 28, 2013, prior to the dispatch of the above official document, and thus did not constitute the subject of the public perusal of the above official document at the time.

(2) From among the persons whose credits and degrees were cancelled on June 11, 2013, F authorized teachers to provide consultation with attorneys-at-law to take measures for each position regarding official notices as of June 7, 2013, and sent e-mail to the standbys issued on September 2013, the teachers’ qualification instructors, assistant principal qualification trainees, assistant principal qualification trainees, and the standbys issued on March 2014 to guide the application for provisional disposition, such as suspension of validity of personnel-related official documents and suspension of execution, but the Plaintiff does not constitute a person identified in the above e-mail.

(3) The coal source written by F on August 11, 2014 stated that “G shall hold a college of graduates in the Yongsan Station, Seoul Station, etc. on or around August 2013, 2013 and shall not cancel the degree upon receipt of a written confirmation that F had taken a lecture of statutory school days from F,” and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff, as a graduate, participated in the above conference or contacted F as above.

(4) On October 31, 2013, the Defendant issued a corrective order including the instant corrective order, but the instant school juristic person failed to comply with it, and the Plaintiff published the “refluence and appeal” in the Hadang Chosun Shipbuilding, which reflects the contents of the said report materials, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that at the time, the Plaintiff participated in the said publication as a member of the Korean Federation of the University.

(5) On April 9, 2014, L and 172 of L among the persons subject to revocation of credits and degrees filed an application for participation in the appellate court (Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap64707), the first instance court (Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap56307), the first instance court (Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap56307), January 7, 2015 in the case of revocation of a corporation dissolution order against the instant school juristic person (Seoul High Court 201474581), and January 9, 2015 (Seoul High Court 2015Gu High Court 2015do104) in the case of application for suspension of the execution of the instant case (Seoul High Court 2015do104), and the Plaintiff did not participate in the said application for participation, and there was no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the Plaintiff’s application for participation in the instant case at the time of his retirement.

C) As seen earlier, in the instant case where there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the instant corrective order within the period of filing a lawsuit under Article 20(1) of the same Act, such as that the Plaintiff knew or could easily know the existence of the instant corrective order, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the grounds for the possibility of filing a lawsuit, the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit on the ground that there is a justifiable ground under the proviso of Article 20(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act even after the lapse of one year from the date of the disposition, since the Plaintiff was in a position where it is not the party to the administrative disposition, but the third party, who is not the party to the administrative disposition, cannot be immediately aware of the existence of the disposition. Therefore

B. As to the defenses related to standing to sue

1) Summary of the defense

The plaintiff is not the direct counter-party to the corrective order of this case, and in particular, the part of the corrective order of this case ordering the cancellation of credits and degrees other than the plaintiff, as there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation thereof, and thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this part shall

2) Determination

A) Even if a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition is not the direct party, if the interests protected by law are infringed by the pertinent administrative disposition, the party is entitled to obtain a decision of the propriety thereof by filing an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation or confirmation of invalidation of the disposition. Here, the legally protected interests refer to individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant administrative disposition and relevant laws and regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 2006)

In addition, the legal interest protected by the relevant disposition-based laws and regulations and relevant laws and regulations refers to the legal interest protected by the prestigious provisions of the relevant disposition-based laws and regulations, and the legal interest explicitly protected by the relevant disposition-based laws and regulations to achieve the administrative purpose of the relevant disposition, although not protected by the relevant disposition-based laws and regulations, the relevant disposition-based laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations do not explicitly provide for the relevant interest protection, and the relevant laws and regulations are interpreted as including the purpose of protecting individual, direct, and specific interests, which are not pure public interest protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du3044, Sept. 12, 2013).

B) In light of the above legal principles by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, which can see the overall purport of the pleading in the relevant laws and regulations as well as the relevant laws and regulations as well as the written evidence Nos. 18 and 19 of the instant corrective order, the Plaintiff is not the direct counterpart of the instant corrective order, but there is a specific and practical risk of infringing on the individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations, and thus, the legal interest to seek its revocation is recognized.

(1) The Higher Education Act provides for matters relating to higher education in order to guarantee the right of the people to receive education as provided in Article 31 of the Constitution. The provisions pertaining to the operation of higher education (Article 22), recognition of credits (Article 23), and conferment of degrees (Article 35) are prescribed by the Presidential Decree and school regulations. The school regulations of the university of this case so delegated stipulate the number of school days, subjects, number of credits, completion and recognition of credits, conferment of degrees, etc. In particular, Article 48(1) provides that “The president may award certificates to those who completed the prescribed course and passed the examination of academic subjects or those who acquired additional credits, and passed the graduation.”

(2) According to the above overall provisions, Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act provides that a university, etc. has the authority to order the Defendant to correct or change so that adequate higher education can be achieved. The purpose of protecting the individual, direct, and specific interests of the students, which is not only the pure public interest protection, which is the right to receive general education, but also the right to receive appropriate higher education. In this case, the above right of students includes the right to lawfully grant degrees and not to be revoked if it satisfies the prescribed conditions, such as the right to receive an in-depth higher education after completing a course faithfully and completing a course of study and passing an essay examination.

(3) Meanwhile, the Higher Education Act provides for the defendant's right to issue an order for correction or modification to the principal of a school (Article 60(1)). In addition, where a person who has received an order for correction or modification as above fails to comply with it within the designated period without justifiable grounds, the defendant may be ordered to cancel or suspend the act of violation, or take measures, such as reducing the number of students, closing the department or suspending enrollment of the school, as prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 60(2)), and where it is impossible to manage normal school affairs in the school because the principal of the school violates the Higher Education Act or any order issued pursuant to the Higher Education Act intentionally or by gross negligence (Article 62(1)1), and further, Article 62(1)1 of the Higher Education Act provides that the person who has violated an order for correction or modification shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding five million won (Article 64(2)3).

(4) According to the above provisions, the school juristic person of this case bears the legal obligation to revoke the Plaintiff’s credits and degrees pursuant to the instant corrective order. Nevertheless, the school juristic person of this case asserted that the school juristic person of this case, including the Plaintiff, could not revoke credits and degrees on the ground that it would normally hear classes of classes and would not revoke the Plaintiff’s credits. Accordingly, the school juristic person of this case did not comply with the instant corrective order, and accordingly, ordered the closure of the university of this case and dissolution of the school juristic person of this case on December 17, 2013. However, considering the fact that the school juristic person of this case would be subject to criminal punishment if it fails to continue to comply with the instant corrective order, the risk of revoking the Plaintiff’s credits and degrees would be direct and specific legal disadvantage.

(5) In addition, even if the school foundation of this case files an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the corrective order of this case, it may withdraw the lawsuit effectively without the consent of the plaintiff who suffered disadvantage under the corrective order of this case. The school foundation of this case may not have any direct interest in the cancellation of the plaintiff's credits and degree, and may not have any interest or intent to actively perform the litigation seeking the revocation of the corrective order of this case or the litigation seeking the confirmation of invalidation, compared to the plaintiff who has a close and practical interest in the corrective order of this case, and the Administrative Litigation Act aims to effectively relieve the infringement of the rights and interests of the people. In light of the fact that the purpose of the administrative litigation is to effectively remedy the infringement of

C) Meanwhile, it is reasonable to view that the instant corrective order is not a divisible in itself, and the Defendant also does not lead to the instant corrective order, taking into account the individual circumstances of the subject of revocation. Since the procedural illegality, which is an illegal cause of the instant corrective order, the absence of a reason for disposition, and deviation and abuse of discretionary power, etc., which are disputed by the Plaintiff, are common matters for all the persons subject to revocation of credits and degrees due to the instant corrective order including the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff has a legal interest in dispute over the entire instant corrective order beyond the part related to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant’s defense prior to

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, even though the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the corrective order of this case is lawful, since the court of first instance dismissed the lawsuit of this case, this court shall revoke the judgment of the first instance and remand the case to the first instance court. However, since the case was deliberated to the extent that it can render a judgment on the merits in the first instance court and the first instance court, it was not remanded to the first instance court pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the proviso of Article 418 of the Civil Procedure Act

4. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff is subject to revocation of the credits and degrees under the instant corrective order, thereby causing serious infringement of rights and interests. Since the Defendant did not grant the Plaintiff an opportunity to present his opinion at all, the instant corrective order is unlawful in the course of the procedure.

2) An order to cancel the credits and degrees in the instant corrective order is to ex post facto cancel the completed fact, and is not included in the concept of the corrective order under Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act, and furthermore, in order for the corrective order to be lawful, it is necessary to set specific correction and modification requirements and implementation period, but notification to unilaterally cancel the degree of all graduates without setting a certain period. Thus, the instant corrective order is a disposition issued without any legal basis, and is in violation of the principle of administrative suitability.

3) The instant corrective order was issued from 204 to 2011, the F faithfully operated school affairs such as executing the instant major lecture only on the second and fourth Saturdays, and thus, to cancel F’s major credits and degrees from F to 198 major credits and degrees granted a master’s degree. The Board of Audit and Inspection conducted an investigation only on the current state of class in the 201 year, but did not conduct an investigation on the school affairs prior to 2010, and the Defendant did not rely on it, and entered the instant corrective order without any additional investigation. Further, the curriculum of the instant major was written on the lecture day table of the university; the course of the instant study was divided by several professors other than F, and the F, the Board of Audit and Inspection sent the students e-mail materials to each State; the Seoul High Court issued the instant corrective order to the effect that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the cancellation of the instant corrective order from the Seoul High Court’s instruction to 250 U.S. participants’ normal operation and testimony on the Defendant.

4) Even if the grounds for the disposition of the instant corrective order are recognized, revoking the degree of a person who has trusted and faithfully participated in the lawful operation of school affairs as well as the degree of a person who has been involved in the instant corrective order is an excessive sanction, which deviates from and abused discretionary power. Furthermore, cancellation of the degree of a person subject to revocation who has not been responsible for the reason for the disposition of the instant corrective order is entirely unnecessary for public interest, while the disadvantage suffered by him is very large, and thus contravenes the principle of proportionality.

B. Determination

(i) the existence of procedural defects

Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act provide that when an administrative agency imposes duties on the parties or imposes restrictions on their rights and interests, etc. disadvantageous disposition, “the parties shall be given an opportunity to submit their opinions,” and Article 2 subparag. 4 of the same Act provides that “parties, etc. shall be directly the parties to the disposition of the administrative agency and interested parties who have participated in the administrative procedure either ex officio or upon request by the administrative agency. Therefore, Articles 21 and 22 of the same Act regarding advance notice and submission of opinions shall not apply to any third party who is not the party to the disposition, or the administrative agency directly participates in the administrative procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du686, Apr. 23, 2009). Accordingly, the Plaintiff does not constitute interested parties directly related to the instant corrective order, either ex officio or upon request, or upon request by the administrative agency that directly becomes the party to the disposition, and thus, the corrective order of this case cannot be said to be unlawful.

2) Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act provides that "The legal basis of the corrective order of this case is that "if a school juristic person violates education-related Acts and subordinate statutes, or orders or school regulations thereunder, it may order correction or modification thereof for a specified period." The school juristic person of this case grants credits and degrees to 198 cancelled persons including the plaintiff who failed to meet the minimum attendance requirements for acquiring the credits and degrees as seen below, which violates the Higher Education Act, etc., which is an education-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and school regulations of the university of this case. For such unlawful act, the corrective order of this case, which is ex post regulation of the administrative agency, includes various measures to remove the result caused by the unlawful act in addition to the order of suspension or prohibition of the act, and the cancellation of credits and degrees illegally granted to the school juristic person of this case, can be an effective and appropriate method to solve the unlawful state caused by the granting of the above credits and degrees, it is reasonable to view that the corrective order of this case is included in the scope of the corrective order of Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that it conforms to the concept of a corrective order to allow the short number of school days. However, it is difficult to expect the graduates to attend a school again without any disadvantage such as the cancellation of credits and degrees, and it is difficult to expect them to take the short number of school days, so the above method cannot be seen as an appropriate method to rectify the illegal state caused by the granting of unfair credits and degrees, and it does not prevent the corrective order of this case from re-afusing credits and degrees by strengthening the insufficient number of school days after the cancellation of credits and degrees. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the corrective order of this case is unlawful without any

(iii) the existence of the reasons for the action

A) Article 20(2) of the Higher Education Act provides that "the number of school days, holidays, and other necessary matters shall be determined by school regulations within the scope prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 21(1) and (2) provides that "the completion of the curriculum shall be operated by school, as prescribed by school regulations." Article 21(2) provides that "the required completion hours per credit shall be determined by Presidential Decree." Article 35(2) provides that "a person who has completed the course determined by school regulations shall be awarded a master's degree or a doctor's degree in the relevant course." Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act delegated by each of the above provisions provides that "the number of school days under Article 20(2) of the Higher Education Act shall be at least 30 weeks per school year." Article 14 provides that "the completion hours per credit shall be at least 15 hours per semester in the course of study under Article 21(2) of the Act."

The provisions on the school regulations and the application for and evaluation of the college of this case under the above Act and the Enforcement Decree of the above Act stipulate that "the school regulations and the regulations on the application for the taking of a master's degree shall be recognized as one credits when a person takes a course for at least 15 hours a hour in one semester and passes the prescribed examination, but the credits shall not be recognized when a person attends a course is less than 3/4, and all credits at a master's degree course shall not be recognized as individual arguments, research notes, guidance, etc. without using a normal method according to the lecture day, and a master's degree shall not be granted."

B) According to the following circumstances, Gap’s evidence, Gap’s evidence Nos. 4, 3, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 24, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 38 through 42, and the overall purport of arguments and arguments, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the following circumstances (no evidence Nos. 3, 7 shall be trusted by Gap, who does not fit with this), while Eul had been in charge of the lecture for the two subjects of the major of this case from 2004 to 2012, the Eul had been in charge of each 6 hours a semester. However, the GC Campus (hereinafter referred to as “GC Campus”) in which the university of this case was located at one time a month or one time a month, or since it was necessary to give credits and degrees by unfairly operating the curriculum at a cafeteria school in Seoul Station, etc., it did not meet the requirements for the degree of G 1 and 40 hours a week a semester (hereinafter the same shall apply).

Therefore, the grounds for the disposition of the corrective order of this case are recognized, and there is no mistake of facts as asserted by the plaintiff.

(1) From October 26, 2012 to November 12, 2012, F operated a course of study only twice in the month in which the questions and answers with the Deputy Inspector of the Board of Audit and Inspection, which were made four times every time from October 26, 2012, and the questions and answers with the officer of the Ministry of Education in charge of education on June 25, 2013, and two weeks every semester. The instant major was opened two subjects per semester, and the same is the subject of all students regardless of the academic number or school year. In early 2004, two external instructors other than the F were demoted, but thereafter, the lectures with the major of gifted social education were the F.

A majority of the universities of this case received teaching materials for the domains, and sent teaching materials for lectures more than two times in one month, and only two times in one month, and the examination without any system and the examination is replaced by a report. As a result, students need to attend the school at least 100% of the 15 week period or one time of absence, students were present at the school, but students were present at the school twice in one month, and students were present at the school once in most months. The F sent teaching materials for lectures because it is an incumbent assistant principal, and the 1.3 week week period is working, and the F sent the teaching materials for lectures to students, but it was notified in advance that “it is possible to teach students only 2/4 week and 1/3 on-line.” Thus, students do not know the above facts.

(2) The five-day class system of an elementary school was in force once in 2004 and December 28, 2006, and it was completely implemented from March 201. From January 1, 2004 to February 28, 2006, F is a teacher from the Gasan Elementary School located in Gyeonggi-si to February 1, 2006, from March 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007, from the GF Elementary School located in Gyeonggi-si to February 28, 2007 to the 10th day of February 20 to the 20th day of February, 201, from March 1, 2007 to the 20th day of February 21, 201 to the 20th day of February 20 to the 10th day of February 21, 201 to the 20th day of September 21, 2012.

(3) According to the Internet Cafin 2005 Guide Semesters posted and published information related to the major class of this case, for teachers in the Seoul metropolitan area, the year 2005 Guide Semesters 2005, October 22, 2005, and November 26, 2005, for teachers in the Seoul metropolitan area, the Seoul seminars on December 24, 2005, for first-time home learning (personal home learning), for first-time learning (personal home learning) and field learning (on November 12, 2005 and December 10, 2005: 3 hours from the Red Science Support Center on June 9, 2007, 100 to the Gyeonggi-do Education Center on June 10, 207, 2007, 207: 10 to 3 hours from 10 to 30,607, 201 to 4.6.27, 2007.

On September 8, 2007, G Camp 4: 30 minutes and 30 minutes (1:30~16:00), total 9 hours and 30 hours and 20-day seminars, and the summer semester 2008, 2 hours (1:0-13:00), 3 hours and 1:0-day lecture and 20-day lecture hours in Seoul (1:0-10-14:00) on September 27, 2008, 1:30-day lecture and 1:0-day lecture and 20-day lecture hours in Seoul, and 1:3:0-day lecture and 1:0-day lecture hours in 200-day, 1:0-day lecture and 2:0-day lecture hours in Seoul, 201-3:5-day lecture hours in 208.

(4) On March 26, 2011, the lecture schedule for spring 2011 is to be prepared; on April 9, 2011, in the case of spring 2011, the master’s degree course is to be held at the same time as the five lectures are held on April 23, 201; on May 14, 2011; on May 28, 2011, the master’s degree course is to be held at the Seoul cafeteria; on June 9, 2011, the doctor’s degree course is to be conducted online; on June 11, 2011; on June 25, 2011; on June 25, 2011; on May 23, 2011, the rest of the cafeteria, Seoul 2015, and on May 14, 2011, the rest of the cafeteria’s hall is to be held online.

(5) The university of this case sent an e-mail to the effect that it was difficult to recruit students because it was established with the university established with the closure of the branch (GH branch) in 2004 due to the lack of access to the university. However, on September 8, 2012, F recommended and promoted to enter the university of this case as a new student of the university of this case to help obtain the academic degree. The university of this case sent the e-mail to the effect that “The university of this case shall be compelled to do so once a month and the remainder may be online. It shall guarantee a degree of 10% within three years.”

(6) On September 29, 2009, G was sentenced to the punishment of occupational embezzlement, imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Higher Education Act, one year and six months, and two years of suspension of execution on September 4, 2015 by the Daejeon District Court Decision 20151870 on September 4, 2015. While G appealed appealed, the appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court Decision 2015Do14961 Decided April 15, 201, which became final and conclusive on April 15, 2016.

(7) On October 2, 2011, after entering the university of this case on March 1, 201, GI who worked as the vice president of the university of this case from September 1, 2007 to March 31, 201, entered the university of this case, and entered the university of this case on March 1, 201, which received a master’s degree of field social education, and entered the CD on October 2, 2012, which received a master’s degree of field social education, and the university of this case provided an education institute’s theory, education hearing, and sex education, etc. from September 1, 2004 to August 207, 207; and GI who worked as the vice president of the university of this case from around the end of 2005 to June 207 at the university of this case, who took a major of field of image management education as a full-time lecturer at the university of this case.

(8) Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff’s lecture log table of the instant college stated that the instant major subjects are running each week, it is difficult to view that the instant major subjects have been running every week as indicated in the said lecture log, unlike the posting and publication of the Internet carbook related to the instant major subjects, unlike other major subjects, as seen earlier. Furthermore, even if the F sent lecture material to each student by e-mail, it does not necessarily constitute the progress of the class merely, and rather, it was an important reason for the instant corrective order to substitute the class with online material delivery. Furthermore, even if the instant major subjects were divided by other professors, including GD, for a period of 10:0 on September 10, 2014, GD’s 10:6:6:0 on September 4, 2004, GD’s 10:6:40 on September 24, 2014, GD’s 10:6:6:0 on September 4, 2014, GD 204.

4) Whether or not to deviate from or abuse discretion

A) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6946, Sept. 20, 2007)

B) Article 9(1) through (4) of the Framework Act on Education provides that schools in charge of higher education shall have public nature and that education shall be conducted with emphasis on whole person education including the development of creativity and the cultivation of personality of students. The basic matters concerning higher education shall be separately prescribed by Act. Article 12 of the same Act provides that fundamental human rights of students, including students, shall be respected and protected in the course of school education, and teaching methods, teaching materials, and educational facilities shall be provided to ensure that students can have the maximum ability by respecting and emphasizing their personality. Article 16 of the same Act provides that founders and managers of schools shall secure, operate, and manage facilities, equipment, finance, teachers, etc. for education as prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes. The Higher Education Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act established pursuant to the Framework Act on Education provide for the standards such as the number of school days, credit hours, etc. that may be determined by school regulations as seen earlier.

According to these relevant provisions, if students who completed the curriculum that cannot meet the minimum number of school days and the hours of study per credit as determined by school regulations give credits indiscreetly and give degrees based on such provision, it is reasonable to view that it is necessary for public interest to correct illegal state caused by such act is inherently infringed upon the public nature of the school and the right of learning of students under the Framework Act on Education.

C) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff entered the university of this case on March 1, 2006 and graduated from the university of this case on August 31, 2007, that the school system was implemented twice a month at the time of 2006 and 2007, and that the notice on December 24, 2005 of the Internet Cafbook related to the major of this case on December 24, 2006 was '206' during the second Saturday and fourth Saturday, but the number of students in the spring of 2006 (5) shall be selected on the second Saturday and second Saturday, and the Plaintiff is expected to obtain a degree of degree easily through the operation of the university of this case, and it seems that the Plaintiff could not easily obtain the degree of degree through the operation of the university of this case, and even if he did not know that the degree of degree was entrance and the degree was not known, the Plaintiff could not obtain the degree of degree of degree of this case's illegality and the degree of degree of this case's major.

D) Therefore, insofar as there is no need for public interest in the instant corrective order or there is no reason attributable to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, and rather, the instant corrective order does not violate the principle of proportionality and does not constitute a deviation or abuse of discretionary power as an excessive sanction.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, but if the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the cancellation of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is more unfavorable to the plaintiff in this case that only the plaintiff appealed, and the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's