2015Guhap68581 Revocation of Disposition of Refusal to Discharge Director

A

The Minister of Education

December 18, 2015

December 30, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On June 1, 2015, the defendant would revoke the rejection disposition the defendant issued against the application for dismissal of the temporary directors D, E, F, G, and H by the school foundation C to the defendant on June 1, 2015.

On June 1, 2015, an incorporated association filed an application with the Defendant to dismiss D, E, F, G, or H of a school foundation C’s temporary directors (hereinafter referred to as “application for dismissal of this case”) with the Defendant on June 1, 2015, may be recognized by taking into account the entire purport of the pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 2.

As a lawsuit in this case, the plaintiff sought to order the defendant to revoke the refusal to dismiss the application in this case).

According to the purport of the above claim, this case's lawsuit constitutes a lawsuit seeking performance of obligation. It is unlawful because it does not fall under any of the types of administrative litigations listed in Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da15828, Feb. 13, 2004).

In addition, even if the plaintiff acted in the lawsuit of this case to seek the cancellation of the refusal of the statement in the purport of this claim, the plaintiff is also the plaintiff that the defendant did not actively express his/her intent to reject the request for dismissal of this case. Thus, the refusal itself cannot be deemed to exist. Furthermore, even if the defendant's refusal act constitutes an administrative disposition subject to appeal, if the administrative agency's rejection of the request by the citizen constitutes an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, the right to request the administrative agency's action should be the citizen, and if the administrative agency does not accept the request by the citizen without the ground of appeal, it cannot be deemed to be an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation because it does not affect the applicant's right or legal interest. Thus, the refusal cannot be deemed to have a right to request the dismissal of the above provisional director against the defendant, and therefore, the refusal act cannot be deemed to constitute an administrative disposition. Furthermore, even if it constitutes an administrative disposition, the plaintiff is a legal entity separate from the B who made the request for dismissal of this case, and even if the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any other right to sue.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is deemed to be a single appearance and is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the Deputy Judge;

Judges Kang Jae-soo

Benefits of Judge chief

1) A written correction submitted by the Plaintiff to this court on July 31, 2015, stated that it is intended to seek confirmation of illegality against the Defendant’s omission against the application for dismissal of school juristic persons B, and that it is intended to modify the purport of the claim stated in the complaint. However, the Plaintiff stated the purport of the claim in the first date for pleading that it did not have an intent to modify the purport of the claim as above, and confirmed it again at the third date for pleading.