[1] Requirements for an administrative agency’s rejection of a citizen’s application to serve as an administrative disposition that is the subject of an appeal

[2] Whether a rejection disposition by an administrative agency against an application for change of the name of the installer of a school-accredited lifelong educational establishment is subject to appeal litigation (affirmative)

[3] The legal nature of an application for changing the installer of a school-accredited lifelong educational establishment and the requirements for accepting the application

[1] If an administrative agency’s refusal of a citizen’s application for active action constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the agency’s filing of the application must be an exercise of public authority or an equivalent administrative action, and the refusal should cause a change in the applicant’s legal relationship, and the citizen should have the right to request the action in accordance with the relevant law or sound reasoning.

[2] Since the Lifelong Education Act does not explicitly prohibit the succession of the installer of a lifelong educational establishment and there is no reasonable need to prohibit the succession of the installer's status, it shall not be construed as prohibiting the succession of the installer's status on the ground that the same Act does not have any express provision on the procedures for the succession of the installer's status. In addition, the law provides for the legal status of the installer of a lifelong educational establishment in Articles 8, 20 (4), and 29, and there is a need to allow the succession of the installer's status in reality. Therefore, the succession of the installer's status shall be allowed as long as the requirements for legality and validity are met under the law and regulations. Accordingly, the applicant has the right to request the change of the name of the installer of a lifelong educational establishment in the form of a lifelong educational facility in which recognition of academic career is recognized due to the law and reasoning, and

[3] In light of Article 20(2) and (3) of the Lifelong Education Act, Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 7 of the Regulations on the Establishment and Operation of Schools below High School, etc., an application to change the installer of a school-type lifelong educational establishment has the substance of applying for the registration of a school-type lifelong educational establishment and the designation of a school-type lifelong educational establishment for a new installer in lieu of the previous installer. Thus, in order to accept an application to change the installer of a school-type lifelong educational establishment under the current Lifelong Education Act, the installer must meet

[1] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition], 2, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 8, 20 (4), and 29 of the Lifelong Education Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [general Administrative Disposition] Articles 2, 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 10 (2) of the former Social Education Act (amended by Act No. 6003 of Aug. 31, 199) (see Article 20 (2) of the current Lifelong Education Act), Article 21 (see Article 20 (3) of the current Lifelong Education Act), Article 8, Article 20 (2), (3), (4), and 29 of the Lifelong Education Act, Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act, Article 7 of the Regulations on the Establishment and Operation of Various Schools, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 2, 19 and 19 of the same Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Nu227 delivered on October 23, 1984 (Gong1984, 1858), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5348 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 291) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu491 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 142), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu7542 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong193, 470), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8968 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong19968), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13081 delivered on May 14, 196 (Gong1996, 198Du29889 delivered on July 26, 209)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Superintendent of Daegu Metropolitan City Office of Education

Daegu High Court Decision 2001Nu1551 delivered on November 9, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Summary of the judgment of the court below

A. The court below acknowledged that the non-party, who is the installer of the new information science high school (the name at the time of registration was changed but the name at the time of registration was changed on October 1999; hereinafter referred to as the "educational facility") registered and designated under the provisions of the former Social Education Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6003 of Aug. 31, 199), applied for the change of the installer's status to the plaintiff on June 14, 200, and the defendant's application for the change of the establishment and operation of the educational facility should not be permitted on July 19, 200, on the ground that the non-party, who is the installer of the new information science high school (the name at the time of registration, was a woman commercial school, but the name at the time of registration was changed; hereinafter referred to as the "educational facility in this case"), was not the installer and operator of the educational facility in this case as one of the grounds for the change of the establishment and operation regulations of the school in this case.

B. Furthermore, with respect to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the above rejection disposition, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s act of refusal of an administrative agency’s request for affirmative administrative act such as the above application constitutes a rejection disposition subject to appeal litigation; (1) there is a legal or sound right to request the applicant to conduct an administrative act according to the application; and even if the nature of disposal is recognized, the revocation lawsuit is revoked and return to the state of the installer’s application for alteration; and (2) there is no benefit in litigation if the application is not accepted by the administrative agency; and (3) contrary to the former Social Education Act and Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act, Article 7 of the Administrative Rule, which applies to the designation standards for educational facilities such as the above application, should not be the ownership of the Nonparty and the person who established and operated the relevant school; and (4) it cannot be deemed that there is no benefit in the installer’s modification or modification of the amended Act and its ground for rejection of the application, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the installer’s ground for alteration of the above Act and its purport.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal (if each supplemental appellate brief was not submitted after the expiration of the period, to the extent of supplement)

A. (1) If an administrative agency’s refusal to act upon a citizen’s application for active action constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the filing of the application must be an exercise of public authority or an equivalent administrative action, and the refusal should cause any change in the applicant’s legal relationship, and the citizen should have the right to request the action in accordance with the relevant law or sound reasoning (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14036, Jul. 10, 1998, etc.).

(2) The amended Act stipulates that a lifelong educational establishment shall be subdivided into a form, an installer, and an operator thereof, and imposes an obligation to register, approve, report, or report the establishment according to the type of the establishment, and does not directly stipulate the succession of the installer's status with respect to a certain lifelong educational establishment according to the type of establishment. The amended Act does not provide for the succession of the installer with respect to academic career-accredited facilities, such as the instant educational facility, even though it provides for the succession of the installer's status with respect to a certain lifelong educational establishment according to the type of establishment (the same shall apply

However, since the revised law does not explicitly prohibit the succession of the installer of a lifelong educational establishment and there is no reasonable need to prohibit the succession of the installer's status, the revised law does not mean that it prohibits the succession of the installer's status on the grounds that there is no express provision on the procedures for succession of the installer's status, but it does not mean that the revised law regulates the role of the installer of a lifelong educational establishment (Article 8) and the grounds for disqualification of the installer of a lifelong educational establishment (Article 20 (4)) at the school-type lifelong educational establishment (Article 20 (4)) and stipulates the legal status of the installer of the lifelong educational establishment (Article 29) and also requires that the installer's succession of the installer's status should be permitted in reality as long as it satisfies the legitimacy and validity of the law and regulations. Accordingly, the applicant's right to request the change of the installer's name in the registered or designated educational educational facility is affected by the applicant's legal relation.

(3) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below denying the administrative disposition of the rejection disposition of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the rejection disposition subject to appeal since the interpretation of the provisions as to the succession to the status of the installer of an educational recognition facility under the amended Act.

B. Furthermore, as to the court below's assumptive judgment, as long as the refusal of a citizen's request against a certain request is recognized as a disposition subject to appeal litigation, it shall be determined within the main issue (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12460, Jun. 11, 1996). As seen earlier, under the revised Act and subordinate statutes, one of the facility standards for recognition of academic career shall be the ownership of the person who establishes and operates the pertinent school, and even if the land area cannot have a building owned by a person other than the founder, such circumstance shall be determined as a matter of whether the application for approval of change of installer of this case can be accepted, and thus, it shall be determined within the main issue.

Nevertheless, the court below's assumptive decision that there is no benefit in legal action on the ground that the application in this case cannot be accepted under the law on the ground that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the benefit in legal action.

C. However, unlike the former Social Education Act, Article 20(2) and (3) of the amended Act and Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act provide that the operating rules shall apply to the standards for the designation of educational facilities. Article 7 of the operating rules provides that teachers and school sites shall be the ownership of the person who establishes and operates the relevant school, and that the school site shall not have any building owned by any person other than the person who establishes the relevant school. Thus, an application for the alteration of educational facilities such as this case’s educational facilities has the substance of applying for the registration of a school-type lifelong educational establishment and the designation of a school-type educational facility for a new installer substituted for the previous installer. Thus, in order to accept an application for the alteration of educational facilities under the amended Act and subordinate statutes, the installer shall be the owner of the relevant school and school site. (Article 3 of the Addenda of the above operating rules shall apply to the existing school juristic person and schools established at the time of the enforcement of this Decree, and it shall not apply to the existing school facilities standards and facilities of the school in accordance with the previous regulations on basic facilities and facilities of schools.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff to whom the status of the installer of this case was transferred can be known that he did not have ownership over the teacher and the school site of this case, and therefore, the change of the installer of this case to the plaintiff cannot be accepted as a result under the revised Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, the defendant's rejection of the application of this case is justified.

D. If so, the court below should have dismissed the claim rather than the dismissal of the lawsuit in this case. However, in this case where only the plaintiff appealed, the court below cannot render a judgment of dismissal disadvantageous to the plaintiff. Thus, the judgment of the court below should be maintained.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)