209Guhap1553 The revocation of the disposition of revocation of an unauthorized stone

1. A;

Since it is a minor, the legal representative B, C

2. D;

Since it is a minor, the legal representative B, C

3. E.

Since it is a minor, the legal representative F, mother G

4. H;

Since it is a minor, the father of parental authority I and the mother J

5. K;

Since it is a minor, the legal representative L/M

6. N;

Since it is a minor, the legal representative 0, the mother P

Q. Q.

Since the legal representative is a minor, R, mother S

1. The superintendent of education of Seoul Special Metropolitan City;

2. T elementary school principal;

3. U elementary school superintendent;

4. V middle school presidents; and

5. Written middle school presidents; and

6. X middle schools;

7. Middle school; and

July 3, 2009

August 28, 2009

1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendants are dismissed.

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

The Superintendent of the Office of Education of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the head of the defendant T elementary school against the plaintiff Gap and Eul, and the head of the defendant T elementary school against the plaintiff Eul on October 8, 2008, respectively, and the head of the defendant T elementary school against the plaintiff Eul on October 31, 2008, and against the plaintiff Eul, the head of the defendant T middle school against the plaintiff Eul, and the head of the defendant T middle school against the plaintiff Eul on December 31, 2008, respectively, revoke the disposition of unauthorized stone on December 23, 2008 against the plaintiff Q.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap 2 (including Serials), Gap 6, and Gap 7:

A. On October 8, 2008, the Defendants conducted the diagnosis and evaluation of basic academic background for the third grade students of elementary schools located in Seoul, and on December 23, 2008 for the first and second grade students of middle schools located in Seoul.

B. At the time of the above evaluation, Plaintiff A, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff D, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff N, Plaintiff N, and Plaintiff Q were students attending each of the above evaluation years, respectively, at the time of the above evaluation, and filed an application for an experiential learning with the principal of the relevant Defendant by Plaintiff (hereinafter “the principal of the Defendant”) prior to the above evaluation date, and did not attend the school on the above evaluation date.

C. However, the principal of the Defendant’s school rejected an application for an experiential learning from the Plaintiffs on the above evaluation date, and simultaneously handled without permission ( Plaintiff D, K, N, and Q, the end of the pertinent month, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion, although they asserted that they did not take measures without permission on December 31, 2008, the end of the pertinent month.

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Determination as to the defendants' main defense of safety

Pursuant to Article 25 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Article 3 of the Regulations on the Preparation and Management of School Life Records, and Article 8 (2) [Attachment Table 8] of the Guidelines for the Preparation and Management of School Life Records, the principal of a school shall comprehensively observe and evaluate the academic achievement, personality, etc. of students, and prepare and manage school life records, which are materials that can be used for the guidance of students and the selection of students from schools of higher level, as the educational information system, includes the situation of withdrawal of materials about the student's school attendance status, etc., which includes the number of school attendance days, 'number of school attendance days', 'number of school attendance days', 'number of school attendance, early retirement', and 'number of school attendance records'. The principal of a school (the head of a school who actually obtains legitimate authority from the head of a school to operate the educational information system pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of the above Guidelines, and directly processes related affairs by directly compiling the status of each student's entrance into the education information system at any time in accordance with the above annual standard of attendance.

Ultimately, in the event of a defect in individual unauthorized disposal by the principal of a school for each learning day, the act of entering the case into the education information system of the computer system by deeming that the user authorized by the head of the school without permission was a student on a specific learning day, is limited to one of the series of internal procedures to prepare an annual withdrawal situation, a part of the school life records, and the content of the act is not yet indicated externally. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the act itself itself constitutes an administrative disposition that specificallys a certain right or obligation against the student or directly changes the legal interest.

Therefore, the lawsuit in this case where the principal of the school applied for correction of the final annual settlement status of the school life records or the correction of the principal's unauthorized disposal of the school life records, and the principal's refusal to do so, apart from seeking revocation by deeming the refusal to be a disposition, is unlawful as it is against the matters not subject to the administrative litigation.

4. Family judgment

A. Even if the principal of the defendant's school takes an administrative disposition, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as follows.

(1) Part on Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City Superintendent

The plaintiffs are also seeking revocation of the disposition of unauthorized seat on the ground that the principal of the defendant school illegally and unlawfully rejected the application for permission for an on-the-job learning from the plaintiffs in accordance with the direction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Superintendent of the Office of Education (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant superintendent of education").

However, barring any special provision in law, a lawsuit seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition shall be filed against an administrative agency externally conducted an administrative disposition, etc., which is the subject of the lawsuit, as the defendant, and this is not different even when considering the circumstances asserted by the

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant superintendent of education is unlawful as it is filed against a non-qualified person.

(2) The part concerning the principal of the defendant

On December 12, 2008, the Superintendent of the Office of Education issued a public notice to the head of a middle school within his jurisdiction to the effect that he would not refuse the evaluation due to an application for an experiential learning, etc. in relation to the implementation of an academic achievement evaluation, and that he would make his best to achieve the evaluation purpose by providing guidance, and that on December 15, 2008, the head of the defendant X middle school knew that on December 16, 2008, the defendant X middle school notified the plaintiff N of the evaluation of each academic achievement on the 17th of the same month, the head of the defendant X middle school notified the plaintiff Q of the evaluation date without permission if he did not participate in an academic achievement study without permission, and that the plaintiffs would be subject to unauthorized resolution in accordance with the academic performance management guidelines if he did not attend the above evaluation date, and that the plaintiffs did not know at any time and did not receive permission for an academic experience study without permission, and that the plaintiffs did not know that the above plaintiffs were subject to the above evaluation without permission, and that they did not have been subject to resolution.

In light of the above facts, barring special circumstances, such as the permission for an application for an on-the-job learning only due to the absence of an applicant, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant principal was subject to a disposition of unauthorized decision made by the head of the school on the day of October 8, 2008 or December 23, 2008 on the day of the above evaluation, even if the plaintiffs failed to receive a separate notice of an on-the-day decision without permission, in accordance with the school regulations, if they did not appear on the day of the attendance, it can be considered as an on-the-day decision without permission, in accordance with the provision that the absence shall be treated as an on-the-day reason or intentional absence.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case brought by the plaintiffs on March 26, 2009 after the lapse of the period of filing the lawsuit, which is unlawful (it is a disposition that does not require notification, and it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiffs received notification in determining the starting point of the period of filing the lawsuit).

B. Furthermore, even if there is a defect in the disposition of non-permission for an experience study, the plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of non-permission for an experience study is illegal on the premise that the principal of the defendant school is illegal, but each of the above dispositions is an independent administrative disposition that causes separate legal effects, and thus, it is not possible to dispute the validity of the disposition of non-permission for an experience study. Thus, even if there is a defect in the disposition of non-permission for an experience study, the validity of the disposition of non-permission for the ground of its illegality cannot be asserted unless there are special

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendants are dismissed.

The presiding judge, Kim Hong-do

Judges Park Jae-young

Judges Lee Yong-woo

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.