In a case where Gap University completed a course of culture and language at Gap University for one year with a foreign university, and completed a course of study at Gap University for the other three years, entering into an agreement on educational cooperation with the contents of “1+3 Programs,” which is taught at a foreign university, and the Minister of Education ordered Gap University President to close the course, and the Minister of Education ordered Gap University President to close the course, the case holding that the above program violates Article 21(1) of the former Higher Education Act with regard to joint operation of the course, and the Minister of Education may order Gap University President to close the program.

Article 21(1) and Article 25(1) of the former Higher Education Act (amended by Act No. 11526, Dec. 11, 2012; hereinafter “former Higher Education Act”) provides that “A university shall provide educational cooperation with “1+3 programs” and “A university shall provide students selected in the program with cultural subjects,” and “The Minister of Education shall point out the illegality of the joint operation (1+3 programs) with the president of the relevant university and order the closure, etc. of the program, the case holding that “A university” constitutes a violation of Article 21(1) and Article 35 of the former Higher Education Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24375, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter “former Higher Education Act”) and Article 13(1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24375, Feb. 15, 2013); and thus, it constitutes “A university”’s establishment of a free economic zone.

Articles 21(1) and 35 of the former Higher Education Act (Amended by Act No. 11526, Dec. 11, 2012); Article 13(1)1 and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24375, Feb. 15, 2013); Articles 5(1) and 17(3) of the former Special Act on Establishment and Management of Foreign Educational Institutions in Free Economic Zones and Jeju Free International City (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013);

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeon Byung-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Education (Law, Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 12, 2013

1. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim among the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

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

On November 29, 2012, the Defendant’s order to close the curriculum jointly with one foreign university to the president of ○ University on November 29, 2012 is revoked. Preliminaryly, the Defendant’s order to close the curriculum jointly with the president of ○ University on November 2, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 2010, ○ University entered into an agreement with the U.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. Around March 201, 201 with the U.S. S. S. S. S. S. (hereinafter “S.C.”). Around one year, ○ University completed a 30-year cultural course and a fishing course at ○ University, and completed the remaining three years to operate “1+3 programs” at the U.S. D., and accordingly, continued to provide students selected in 1+3 programs with cultural subjects. On November 2015, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted ○ University 1+3 programs.

B. On November 2, 2012, the Defendant filed a civil petition regarding the joint operation of curriculum (including 1+3 programs) with a foreign university with respect to the entire higher educational institution, and accordingly, the Defendant issued a notice of the joint recruitment of the former Higher Education Act (amended by Act No. 11526, Dec. 11, 2012; hereinafter “ Higher Education Act”); Articles 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24375, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act”); Articles 13 and 29 subparag. 1 and (2) of the former Special Act on the Establishment and Operation of Foreign Educational Institutions in Free Economic Zones and Jeju Free International City (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Special Act”) with the content of the curriculum including the joint recruitment of the said foreign university at the same time in violation of Article 5(1), (4) and (3)1) of the former Act.

C. On November 29, 2012, the Defendant, despite the first notification to the president of ○ University on the grounds as follows, issued a “Notice of the Closure of Illegal Study Programs with the Head of ○ University” (hereinafter “the second notification”) to the effect that the Defendant still operates an illegal study program without delay (hereinafter “the second notification”).

The program of study preparation, which is not related to the college degree in the main text, does not correspond to the joint operation of the curriculum under the Higher Education Act, which stipulates the joint operation of the college degree course, but is in violation of the Special Act because domestic universities are operating the English and cultural course entrusted by foreign universities by inviting students of foreign universities, which constitutes a foreign educational institution, and even if such program is viewed as a domestic course based on the premise of foreign university admission, it is in violation of the provisions of the Higher Education Act such as the quota

D. On December 3, 2012, the Defendant issued a request to the president of ○ University to submit the result of the measure to close the study program (hereinafter “third notification”) stating that “The Defendant pointed out the illegality of the 1+3 program and immediately ordered the closure, etc.” (hereinafter “third notification”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 10, 21, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the conjunctive claim and the defendant's main defense

A. Whether the disposition is specific and the conjunctive claim is legitimate

The Plaintiff primarily sought the revocation of the second notification and sought the revocation of the first notification. The first notification is merely a prior notification of the extension of the deadline for closure, and the first notification is not recognized. However, according to the foregoing facts, the first notification is difficult to be deemed specifically identified by the counter-party to the disposition, and is merely a document title “allegation”, and there is no illegality in any of the higher education institutions. Furthermore, the Defendant ordered the closure of the first +3 program and other unlawful study programs on the ground of the foregoing reasons after the first notification by ○ University’s president as the counter-party to the disposition. Furthermore, in light of the circumstances and circumstances, the first notification appears to be merely a prior notification, such as requesting voluntary correction before taking an administrative disposition, and only the second notification is deemed to impose an obligation to close the ○○ University’s program 1+3 program on the president, and thus, the second notification does not constitute an object of the second notification in the appeal litigation (the second notification of the Plaintiff’s claim in this case).

B. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense of safety

1) The defendant's assertion

In addition, the Plaintiff is not the other party to the instant disposition, and there is no evidence to deem that ○ University was not a student of ○ University at the time of the instant disposition and passed the instant disposition, and thus, ○ University’s qualification cannot be acquired. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant disposition

2) Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

3) Determination

The Plaintiff is not the other party to the instant disposition. However, given that the risk of criminal sanction exists if the president of ○ University, the other party to the instant disposition, fails to comply with the instant order to take corrective measures (Articles 60(1) and 64(2)3 of the Higher Education Act), the president of ○ University’s closure of 1+3 programs according to the instant disposition (i.e., the head of ○ University’s closure of 1+3 programs around December 7, 2012) cannot be said to have determined the legality of the instant disposition against the Defendant, who is the other party to the instant disposition, as the president of ○ University, at the time of the instant disposition’s revocation of the instant disposition by ○ University’s revocation of the instant disposition by ○ University’s 1’s educational program (Article 60(1) and 64(2)3 of the Higher Education Act). The purport of the instant disposition by ○ University’s revocation of the instant disposition by 3rd University’s educational program is to be determined by the Plaintiff’s right and duty to obtain academic degree (Article 2).

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) procedural defects;

A) Since the Defendant did not present specific reasons as to which the 1+3 program constitutes a joint operation of curriculum in any respect, and in any respect, it violates the Special Act on Foreign Educational Institutions and the Higher Education Act, the instant disposition is in violation of Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

B) Although the Defendant should inform the parties of the method of appeal regarding the disposition in question, the instant disposition is against Article 26 of the Administrative Procedures Act, since there was no mentioning in the process of rendering the disposition in this case.

2) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

A) In light of the relationship with Article 60(2) of the Higher Education Act, the Defendant did not set a reasonable period of time in rendering the instant disposition and can not include “closed” in the scope of the corrective order under Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act. Thus, the instant disposition cannot be the basis for the instant disposition under Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act. Moreover, prior to the instant disposition, the Defendant did not issue a corrective order with the president of ○ University for a fixed period of time, and did not comply with the standards prescribed in Article 71-2(1) [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act. Therefore, the instant disposition cannot be the basis for the instant disposition under Article 60(2) of the Higher Education Act.

B) 1+3 Programs are not jointly operated between invited students and foreign universities based on the provisions on international exchanges at ○ University (hereinafter “Rules on International Exchange”) and the educational cooperation agreement concluded between the ○ University and the ○ University, as well as between the domestic universities and the foreign universities, which fall under the proviso of Article 21(1) of the Higher Education Act. The Plaintiff is not conditional students who are students of the dental university, but are receiving education at the ○ University upon request of the ○ University in accordance with the above educational cooperation agreement. Accordingly, the instant program does not apply to the proviso of Article 21(1) of the Higher Education Act.

C) The recruitment of students for the 1+3 program was conducted by the SP Korea Center Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant center”) that was entrusted with the administrative affairs pertaining to the said program by the dental university, and the ○ University did not recruit students. Inasmuch as ○ University had invited students from the dental university to be invited by the Plaintiff and other students, it cannot be deemed as a foreign educational institution. Therefore, it is not recognized that ○ University violated Article 5(1) and (4) of the Special Act on Foreign Educational Institutions. Thus, even if ○ University is recognized as a violation of the Special Act on Foreign Educational Institutions, the subject of the violation shall be the HP, and Article 17(3) of the same Act provides that the disposal shall be made against the school juristic person. Thus, the instant disposition against the president of ○ University is unlawful, and the Special Act provides for the procedures for the establishment and authorization of educational institutions, and does not constitute an order of education or school regulations pursuant to Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act.

D) Since ○ University does not have obtained authorization for lifelong education facilities, Article 42 Subparag. 3 of the Lifelong Education Act, which is premised on this, cannot serve as the basis for the instant disposition.

E) Under the Higher Education Act, the regulation on the fixed number of students of ○ University applies to the students of ○ University, and the regulation on the total number of students under the former Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act”) applies to the establishment of a university or the increase in the fixed number of admission, and thus, it does not apply to 1+3 programs that a domestic university autonomously implements

F) As long as ○ University does not recruit 1+3 program students as ○ University students, Articles 32 and 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act regarding the implementation plan for admission screening does not apply to the above program, the instant disposition may not be based on the ground for the instant disposition.

(iii)the deviation from and abuse of discretion;

A) From around 2010 to 1+3 programs, the Defendant received data from each university and did not take any measures until the beginning of entrance screening even in the year 2013, even though he had been well aware of the contents of the data on the current status of operation of each university. As such, the Defendant implicitly expressed the public opinion that there is no problem in the 1+3 program, and the Plaintiff trusted this and entered the 1+3 program. Nevertheless, the Defendant issued the instant disposition contrary to the Plaintiff’s above protection value, and thus, the instant disposition violates the principle of trust protection.

B) Even if the grounds for the instant disposition are recognized, it could minimize the infringement of the Plaintiff’s rights and interests by correcting the problems instead of closing the 1+3 program or excluding the admitted students in 2013. Since the Plaintiff’s right to education, etc., which is more infringed than the public interest to be achieved by the instant disposition, the instant disposition violates the principle of proportionality.

B. Facts of recognition

1) Conclusion of an agreement on educational cooperation between the ○ University and the Sco University, and the details thereof

around March 2010, ○ University entered into an “Educational Cooperation Convention” relating to 1+3 programs (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Young University and the instant center. The main contents thereof are as follows.

In order to recruit Korean students and to provide them with high level of education at 00 universities or colleges. This Convention means 1+3 educational cooperation to recruit Korean students equipped with qualifications for admission at 00 universities or colleges, and if necessary, concentrating English curricula provided by the Center. In cooperation with 00 universities or colleges, the Center will invite students who are equipped with qualifications for admission at 0-3 English language universities or colleges, and send 1: 2. 3. 3. 6. 6. 6. 3. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6.. 3. 3. 6. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3.. 3. 3. 3. 3.. 3. 3......... .................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

2) 1+3 Program progress general

A) Under the title of “○○ University-U.S. Special Courses 1+3 international special courses, and year 2012, 2012,” the instant center produced posters using a building photograph recorded by the disadvantaged (△△△△) of ○ University and publicized 1+3 programs. The instant center, on September 27, 2012, “○○ University-U.S. University 1+3 international special courses, and 150 students from Gco University, etc., 8 U.S., such as Sco University, under the title of “The ○ University-U.S. University - California University 1+3 international special courses, 2013 occasional special courses,” was selected from 150 students, and successful applicants were posted on the website of the instant center.

B) In accordance with the instant agreement, ○ University provided education to students who passed a 1+3 program in ○ University in consultation with the Mocco college for a year on cultural subjects that can be recognized as regular credits at the ○ University. The instant Center operated a language course to support 1+3 program-related administrative work and substitute for discussion, and received necessary support from ○ University for the operation of the said program and the management of school affairs.

C) The registration depository book for students was issued in the name of the instant center and the enrollment fee and screening fee deposit account was also the account of the instant center. The enrollment fee paid by students who passed the instant program during the course of receiving education at ○ University for one year. ○ University was KRW 26 million from the instant center as 1+3 program tuition fees for 2011 and KRW 1.9 billion for 200 million for 201 and KRW 2.9 billion for 2012.

D) In ○ University, ○ University did not confer a bachelor’s degree on ○ University for 1+3 programs students.

3) The recruitment of the Plaintiff et al. for the year 2013

A) On November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted a written application for admission to the instant center for 1+3 programs. On November 27, 2012, a person related to the co-university provided the Center with the result of prior evaluation of 1+3 program applicants, including the Plaintiff, by e-mail, to the Center on November 27, 2012, and on January 2, 2013, the Plaintiff confirmed that all official documents are submitted by the Plaintiff, etc., satisfying the conditions of entry into the Sco college.

B) On March 1, 2013, the dental college issued to the Plaintiff a certificate verifying that the Plaintiff was admitted to the program at ○○ University-Co-university (1+3).

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 10, 12, 15, 16, 21, 36, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the court's inquiry reply to ○ University, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) Determination on the assertion of procedural violation

A) Whether the duty to present reasons is violated

According to the above facts, the Defendant’s primary notification on November 2, 2012 (hereinafter “○ University”) sent a civil petition regarding 1+3 programs, etc., and notified that the program is likely to be in violation of the pertinent laws and regulations, such as Article 23(1) of the Higher Education Act and Article 13(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. In rendering the instant disposition, 1+3 programs are irrelevant to the domestic university’s academic degree, which does not fall under the joint operation of curriculum under the Higher Education Act, but fall under the actual violation of the Special Act on Foreign Educational Institutions because foreign university students are operating English and cultural programs entrusted to foreign universities. The other party to the instant disposition is the president of ○ University, the president of ○ University, the president of ○ University, the other party to the instant disposition, and the president of ○ University, the president of ○ University, at the time of the instant disposition, can sufficiently be aware of what grounds and disposition was made for such reason. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition did not interfere with the instant administrative remedy procedure.

B) Whether the duty of disclosure of the method of appeal is violated

Article 26 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that the other party to an administrative disposition shall notify the other party to the disposition of the procedure of objection against the administrative disposition. Since the above provision on the procedure of notification intends to provide convenience to the other party to the administrative disposition taking the procedure of objection against the administrative disposition, even if the disposition agency did not comply with the duty of disclosure under the above provision, it is limited to the extension of the deadline for filing an administrative appeal, and thus, it cannot be said that any defect is caused by the administrative disposition that is the object of the trial (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu529, Nov. 24, 1987). Furthermore, since the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in this case within the filing period under the Administrative Litigation Act, it is difficult to deem the disposition in this case unlawful merely because the defendant did not notify the method of objection at the time of the disposition in this case.

2) Determination as to the existence of the reasons for the disposition

A) Whether it violates the principle of statutory reservation

① Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act provides that, if a school violates education-related Acts and subordinate statutes, the Defendant may order the head of the school to take corrective measures or modification within a reasonable period of time, and Article 60(2) of the same Act provides that, if a person ordered to take corrective measures or modification pursuant to Article 60(1) fails to comply with such order within a specified period of time without justifiable cause, the Defendant may directly revoke or suspend the act of violation of education-related Acts and subordinate statutes. However, although the title of the instant disposition is “public notice of closure,” the purport of the instant disposition is that the president of the ○ University should take measures for closure of 1+3 programs, and the Defendant did not directly close the program, and the Defendant requested the president of the ○ University on December 3, 2012 to submit the result of the order to close the program and submit it to the president on December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff’s disposition based on the Defendant’s order to close the program without justifiable reason.

② As seen earlier, Article 60(2) of the Higher Education Act provides that the Defendant, as a supervisory authority of a higher education institution, may directly revoke a violation. As such, if the head of a school fails to comply with an order for correction or modification (hereinafter “order for correction”) under Article 60(1) and (2) of the same Act, the order for correction under Article 60(1) of the same Act, which is the premise thereof, may include an order for revocation (closed).

③ Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act provides that a corrective order shall be issued within a specified period. According to the evidence evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the Defendant did not set a period in the instant disposition. However, setting the period of a corrective order is not only a considerable period for the other party to the disposition to implement the corrective order in practice, but also a considerable period for the Defendant to clarify the non-performance of the corrective order in the subsequent measure pursuant to Article 60(2) of the same Act. According to the above facts, the Defendant issued the first notice requesting the Defendant to voluntarily close the 1+3 program prior to 27 days’ volume prior to the instant disposition. On December 3, 2012, after the instant disposition, the Defendant closed the 1+3 program by December 10, 2012, and submitted the result to submit the result to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s submission of the result was not only granted a considerable period of implementation, but also the Defendant’s submission of the instant disposition directly after the date of the notice cannot be deemed unlawful.

B) Whether the Higher Education Act and the Special Act were violated

(1) Articles 21(1) and 35 of the Higher Education Act, Article 13(1)1 and 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act may operate curricula as determined by school regulations. However, in the case of a general university, bachelor’s degree should be granted to a person who has completed the course, either solely or jointly with a foreign university. Articles 5(1) and 17(3) of the Special Act on Foreign Educational Institutions stipulate that when a foreign educational foundation establishes a foreign educational institution in the Republic of Korea, it shall meet the establishment standards and shall obtain approval from the defendant, and may order a person who uses the name of a foreign educational institution or recruits students to use the name of a foreign educational institution and substantially operates the facility in the form of a foreign educational institution without obtaining approval from the defendant, thereby prohibiting the evasion of the law. In light of the following circumstances, given that programs are operated jointly with a foreign university, but not with a degree given to the domestic university, and that ○ University actually operated with a foreign educational institution, each of the above program constitutes a violation of the regulations.

① The instant agreement is an educational cooperation to recruit Korean students who meet the qualifications for admission to a Korean university. The instant center included the contents that recruited students who meet the qualifications for admission to a dental university through 1+3 program in cooperation with ○ University. The instant center actively promoted 1+3 programs using the name, photograph, etc. of ○ University as well as California University in recruiting students in accordance with the instant agreement. In determining whether to provide 1+3 programs, it seems to have significant impact on ○ University to provide ○ University with one-year cultural curriculum among the said programs. Accordingly, it is determined that ○ University has contributed significantly to recruiting students through the instant center.

② The instant Convention imposes on ○○ University the obligation to maintain the records of the cultural subjects required pursuant to all the regulations of the California University. In fact, ○ University selected subjects recognized as regular credits at the Sco University in consultation with the Sco University in the course of providing 1+3 programs to students of 1+3 programs. Ultimately, ○ University failed to conduct 1+3 programs autonomously, and conducted them in accordance with the regulations on granting credits to Sco University.

③ In light of the instant agreement and the operational status of the 1+3 program as seen earlier, if the program completed a cultural and fishing course at ○○ University and completed a course of study at ○ University, the remaining three years had already been determined as having obtained a bachelor’s degree from a dental university after completing a major course at ○ University. Moreover, ○ University provided students with a space for school facilities in the instant center, which is conducting 1+3 program-related language and administrative work in accordance with the instant agreement. Accordingly, 1+3 program constitutes a case where at least domestic and foreign universities jointly operate a curriculum. Nevertheless, since the program did not confer a degree on the Plaintiff after completing a 1+3 program, the program violates the proviso to Article 21(1) of the Higher Education Act, Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 5(1) and (3) of the same Act, and Article 5(1) of the Higher Education Act and Article 17(1) of the same Act.

④ As seen earlier, even if the ○ University completed the 1+3 program, only the bachelor’s degree was not awarded to the ○ University. In light of the fact that the ○ University, for one year, provided a cultural course for the said program student and a space for the course of study and administrative affairs supervised by the instant center, used the name of the ○ University from the recruitment stage, and the ○ University also contributed considerably to the recruitment of students, and that the 1+3 program is selected by consulting with the Moco college and allowing recognition at the Moco college without obtaining the Defendant’s approval, it may be deemed that the program falls under the case of using the name of a foreign educational institution or recruiting students and operating the facility in the de facto form of a foreign educational institution.

⑤ Although the 1+3 Program goes against the language and purport of Articles 5(1) and 17(3) of the Special Act on Foreign Educational Institutions, the instant disposition is merely a corrective order under Article 61(1) of the Higher Education Act, not an order to close down under Article 17(3) of the Special Act on Foreign Educational Institutions (Article 17(3) of the Special Act on Foreign Educational Institutions is deemed to have no special restriction on the subject of violation). In addition, the Special Act aims to improve the educational environment for foreigners residing in the region by prescribing matters concerning the establishment and operation of foreign institutions established in free economic zones, etc. (Article 1), the establishment of foreign educational institutions, alteration of important matters, closure, etc. (Articles 5 and 16), and the Defendant’s instruction and supervision (Article 9). In light of the aforementioned provisions, the Special Act on Foreign Educational Institutions also falls under the education-related Acts and subordinate statutes provided for in Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act.

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the 1+3 program is based on Article 23(1) of the Higher Education Act, international exchange rules, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff himself/herself constitutes an invited student. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff who passed the above program and received education at ○ University cannot be deemed to constitute an invited student based on the above provisions. Therefore, ○ University did not have any legal basis for the Plaintiff and other 1+3 program students.

(1) According to Articles 26 through 29 of the International Exchange Regulations, invited visiting students are students dispatched from foreign universities which have concluded an exchange agreement in excess of the fixed number of students, and completing the regular course of ○ University. As students enrolled at foreign universities which have concluded the exchange agreement, the support documents shall be notified to ○ University International Exchange Team by not later than three months prior to the commencement of the semester with the recommendation of the affiliated department of international exchange, and the International Exchange Team shall be notified to the foreign university department with the approval of the president of ○ University after the examination of the president of ○ University, along with the standard admission permit for visiting students (written evidence 4).

② Article 9 of the International Exchange Regulations provides for mutual benefits in accordance with the basic principles of the exchange agreement. As seen earlier, the instant agreement stipulates that ○○ University’s students who receive a degree from a dental college through 1+3 program cooperates in the recruitment of students and the completion of the language course and provide a course of culture for one year. There is no content on the obligation of ○ University students to either exchange students or visit students to the dental college or to cooperate with ○ University. Accordingly, it is difficult to view the instant agreement as an exchange agreement under the International Exchange Regulations.

③ According to the instant agreement, if ○○ University did not have good results, she is permitted to enter the courses of the U.S. Language Cultural Institute (e.g., level 6) as a bachelor’s degree course. The U.S. language cultural institute course ought to complete the course of one year at ○ University and the language course at ○ University. Therefore, in accordance with the instant agreement, the Plaintiff, etc., who completed the cultural course, etc. at least one year at ○ University, is not a student at ○ University. Although the Plaintiff received notice or certificate related to admission from 1+3 universities, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as an student at ○ University’s school solely based on the fact that the Plaintiff entered 1+3 programs, and that it is difficult to recognize the content of the instant agreement as a student at 3rd University’s college’s college’s 10th school year and 130th school year’s 10th school year and 20th school year’s 3rd school college’s 30 programs (including each number).

④ In light of the record, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had gone through the procedure for selecting invited students under the International Exchange Regulations. According to the evidence evidence No. 23, it is recognized that the Plaintiff sent a letter to the ○ University, on March 1, 2013, requesting 16 students who passed the 1+3 program to undergo the 2013 program. However, it is difficult to deem that solely based on the foregoing facts, the Plaintiff had gone through the said procedure, such as recommendation of the International Exchange Department, the examination of the ○ University International Exchange Team, and the approval of the president.

⑤ The invited student is a student who completed the regular course of the ○ University. The 1+3 program was conducted separately from the students enrolled in the ○ University with a substantial part of the subjects recognized as regular credits (see this Court’s inquiry reply to the fact-finding regarding the ○ University). Therefore, it is difficult to view the curriculum received by the Plaintiff, etc. as the regular course of the ○ University.

(6) Article 23(1) of the Higher Education Act is merely a provision that a domestic university can recognize credits obtained by students from other domestic or foreign universities, and such provision does not seem to be a legal basis for 1+3 programs.

C) Determination as to other allegations

(1) Whether the Lifelong Education Act is violated

The instant disposition does not state that the 1+3 program violated the Lifelong Education Act, and thus, it is unclear whether this part constitutes the grounds for the instant disposition, even if this part is included in the grounds for the instant disposition, there is no evidence to deem that ○ University constitutes a person who obtained authorization for a lifelong education establishment under the Lifelong Education Act. Thus, the instant disposition cannot be conducted on the basis of Article 42 subparag. 3 of the Lifelong Education Act.

(2) Whether the provisions on the fixed number of employees under the Higher Education Act are violated

According to Article 32 of the Higher Education Act, Articles 28, 29(1), and 29(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the fixed number of students shall be determined by school regulations for each recruitment unit determined by school regulations within the scope of the number of students determined by school teachers, school sites, teachers, etc. based on the fixed number of admission. However, the fixed number of students shall be determined by school regulations within the scope of the fixed number of admission: Provided, That the fixed number of students who are commissioned students, Korean nationals residing abroad, or foreigners shall be determined by separate fixed number of students. Furthermore, Article 18(3) of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act and Article 24(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2443, Mar. 23, 2013) of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2443) shall be determined by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs after deliberation of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Committee. Accordingly, the fixed number of students under Article 32 of the Higher Education Act shall not be determined by the Plaintiff’s.

(3) Whether the university entrance violates the relevant regulations

As seen earlier, the ○○ University cooperation with a considerable portion of the recruitment of students for 1+3 programs, and the instant center used terms that may confuse ○ University with the time of entering the said program by publicizing the said program. However, since ○ University’s degree is not granted in the foregoing program, it is difficult to deem such program as admission screening for domestic universities. Therefore, it does not seem that the ○ University violated Articles 32 and 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act regarding the establishment, etc. of an implementation plan for admission screening for universities.

D) Sub-committee

Therefore, although the 1+3 program does not violate the Lifelong Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and the relevant regulations at the time of university admission, it violates Article 21(1) of the Higher Education Act, and Articles 5(1) and 17(3) of the Special Act on Foreign Educational Institutions, and thus, the Defendant may order the closure of 1+3 program pursuant to Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act.

3) Determination on the assertion of deviation or abuse of discretion

A) Whether it violates the principle of trust protection

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 6, 26, and 27, from around 2010 to around 2012, the Defendant requested the ○ University to submit answers or data on programs 1+3 to the National Assembly or to respond to civil petitions, etc., and ○ University may recognize the fact that ○ University responded to or submitted some data. However, such circumstance alone is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant issued a public opinion statement with respect to the Plaintiff, either explicitly or implicitly, that there was no legal problem in the 1+3 program. Even if there was a specific public opinion statement of the Defendant, the Plaintiff submitted a 1+3 program application to the instant Center on November 15, 2012, and the Defendant notified the entire higher education institution of the closure of the program 1+13 program, etc. on November 2, 2012, and prepared for the program 1+13 program, etc., and the Plaintiff’s assertion that this part of the program was worth protecting the Plaintiff’s trust.

B) Whether the principle of proportionality is violated

The aforementioned evidence and the purport of oral argument are as follows. ① 1+3 programs are practically related to the Plaintiff’s bachelor’s degree and admission to the domestic university, such as ○○ University, and there is a risk of considerable confusion to examinees preparing for admission using the name of ○ University and the word “pre-time” or “pre-time” in the process of publicity and admission to the university. ② As seen earlier, 1+3 programs are not joint operation of curriculum permitted under the Higher Education Act, but are in fact conducted by ○ University on behalf of ○ University in contravention of the purpose of the Special Act. It is difficult to find other effective measures to minimize infringement of the Plaintiff’s admission to the ○ University due to the absence of any legal basis to educate the students who passed the above programs at ○ University. ③ Even if 1+3 programs are permitted, it is difficult to find out the need for the Defendant to use the programs as a 1-2 program prior to the enforcement of the 1-2 program as well as the fact that the Defendant had already been informed of the need to use the program in the ○ University.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the conjunctive claim in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the main claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges anti-Japanese Co., Ltd. (Presiding Justice)