1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the defendant decides on the pre-determination of the merits set forth in the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative

The Defendant’s amendment to the Defendant’s claim prior to the merits of this Court brought the instant lawsuit against the Plaintiffs on March 26, 2013 at the initial complaint to seek revocation of the Defendant’s differential subsidy for school operation expenses at the charge school below the statutory charges standard set forth in the calculation basis of the financial defective subsidy. However, the claim was amended by the Defendant’s amendment of the claim as of August 28, 2013, seeking revocation of the Defendant’s measure of reducing school operation expenses equivalent to the shortage of the charges that the Defendant sought against the Plaintiffs on May 31, 2013, and again, the claim was amended by the Defendant’s amendment of the claim and the ground for the claim.

Since the above amendment of the purport of a claim cannot be permitted for modification of the purport of the claim, the purport of the claim stated in the original written complaint should be subject to a trial.

However, the Defendant’s notification to the Plaintiffs on May 31, 2013 is merely an act of notifying the Plaintiffs of the details of the payment of the financial defective subsidy requested by the Plaintiffs, and thus, insofar as the disposition is not recognized as not having occurred since the reduction effect of the subsidy did not occur, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the said notification is unlawful.

The claim by the non-existence of the right to request the plaintiff is sought for the full amount of the financial defective subsidy, and since there is no right to request the plaintiffs to seek the full amount of the financial defective subsidy,

Judgment

The alteration of a claim against the illegality of change of claim shall not change the basis of the claim, unless it substantially delays the litigation procedures.