Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Yoon In-tae et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

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

May 26, 2016

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The defendant's refusal to recommend the appointment of the president of ○ University on October 21, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Case summary

A. Article 24 of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 12-3 of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials provides for matters necessary for the selection and recommendation of candidates for president appointment. This provision provides for the procedures for the recruitment of candidates for president, the president candidate recommendation management committee and the president candidate recommendation committee, and the procedures for the selection of candidates for president appointment. Of them, in relation to the procedures for the selection of candidates for president appointment, the above provision provides that two candidates for president appointment among the candidates for president shall be selected by vote at the president candidate recommendation committee, and the first and second order of recommendation shall be determined in order of votes.

B. On October 16, 2015, 2015, the expiration date of the term of office of the former 7th president, ○ University published a public announcement of the recruitment of president candidates on April 10, 2015 to appoint the 8th president. Accordingly, on August 28, 2015, 2015, ○ University applied for the recruitment of president candidates, including the Plaintiff, who was working as the professor of ○○ University and △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and the ○ University registered as a president candidate. On June 10, 2015, ○ University decided that the Plaintiff, who received the highest vote from the vote of the president candidate recommendation committee among the candidates for president’s appointment among the candidates for president’s rank, was first determined in the second order, and the Nonparty, who received the highest vote thereafter, recommended the Defendant to appoint Nonparty 2 as the Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 as the president candidate.

C. On October 21, 2015, the Defendant notified the president of ○ University of the Nonparty, who was to appoint the Nonparty as the president of ○ University from October 21, 2015 to October 20, 2019, to the effect that the Nonparty would be appointed as the president of ○ University (hereinafter “Notice of Personnel Management on October 21, 2015”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 14-2, and Gap evidence 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff asked the President to appoint the Nonparty as the president of ○ University on the same day. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s refusal to recommend the appointment constitutes a disposition subject to administrative litigation, asserting that the refusal to recommend the appointment constitutes a disposition subject to administrative litigation. Accordingly, the Defendant sought revocation of the refusal to recommend the Plaintiff through the instant lawsuit. Accordingly, the Defendant’s recommendation to recommend the appointment is an internal decision process among administrative agencies, and does not cause any change in the existing status of rights. Thus, the Defendant’s failure to recommend the President to appoint the Plaintiff as the president of ○ University is not an administrative disposition, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking revocation thereof should be dismissed.

B. According to Articles 24 and 12-2 and 12-3 of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials (hereinafter “the Decree on the Appointment”) regulated by the appointment of the head of the national university, the head of the university shall appoint the president at the recommendation of the defendant (Article 24(1) of the Act), and the head of the university shall recommend two or more candidates (Article 12-2 of the Decree on the Appointment of the head of the university) to recommend the appointment of the head of the university (Article 24(2) of the Act), and the appointment recommendation committee for the head of the university shall be established within the scope of “the appointment recommendation committee for the head of the university” to recommend the appointment of the head of the university under Article 24(1) of the Act (Article 24(2) of the Act) or “the appointment recommendation committee for the head of the university according to methods and procedures agreed upon by the head of the university” (Article 24(3) of the Act), and the head of the university shall not be deemed a candidate for the head of the university without delay.

D. Thus, the lawsuit of this case filed against the President, which requested the cancellation of the defendant's act that did not recommend the President to appoint the plaintiff as the president of ○○ University, is unlawful as it is an administrative litigation filed against the purport that it cannot be subject to administrative litigation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment-Related Acts and subordinate statutes omitted]

Judges Yu Jin-jin (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong