Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Tae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government District Education Office (Attorney Jeong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 7, 2005

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2003Guhap36604 delivered on June 16, 2004

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection of the report of the remote lifelong education facility to the plaintiff on September 20, 2003 shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: Article 27 of the "Article 26" in Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be corrected to "Article 26" and the part of the "decision on the plaintiff's second argument" in Part 8 to Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be corrected to "Article 26" and the part of the "decision on the plaintiff's second argument" in Part 6 shall be as stated in the column for the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is

Parts used in a trial;

D. Judgment on the second argument by the plaintiff

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8 through 12, and evidence Nos. 13-1, 2, and 21, the fact that a bedclothes correction course has been established in a social education center attached to a scenic area university, including the Korea National University, Jeonnam University, Ginam University, Giant University, Seoul National University, Chosun National University, Chosun National University, Hanyang National University, Hanyang National University, and Gi Lifelong Education Center established a curriculum related to △△△△.

However, the plaintiff reported to the defendant pursuant to Article 22 (1) of the Act to operate the education facility of this case as a remote education-type lifelong educational facility using the information and communications media prescribed in Article 22 (2) of the Act. On the other hand, in the case of the social education center or lifelong education center attached to a university, the head of the school shall establish it pursuant to Article 25 (3) of the Act and report it to the competent government office, and the above broad lifelong education center "the State and local governments shall, as prescribed by this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes, endeavor to give all citizens an opportunity to learn through the establishment of lifelong education facilities, training of lifelong education teachers, development of lifelong education programs, and subsidization of expenses to lifelong educational institutions, etc.", and "the superintendent of education shall operate lifelong education-type lifelong education-type lifelong educational facilities with the aim of operating lifelong education-type lifelong educational facilities using such information and communications media", separate from the above 13 (3) of the Act, it cannot be viewed that the establishment of lifelong education-type education center of this case violates the above 20-type of education facilities.

In addition, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 19 and 20, it is recognized that the head of the Jung-gu Office of Education Office of Seoul Metropolitan Government accepted the report of the remote lifelong educational facilities of Korea for the purpose of △△△△ in December 2001, but thereafter, the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development expressed the administrative agency's position that it is impossible to establish and operate the curriculum related to medical science at various lifelong educational facilities in order to recognize and correct the existing problems and to correct them, even if the report of the remote lifelong educational facilities of Ced Korea for the purpose of △△△△△△ in 2001 was accepted, the disposition of this case alone does not violate the principle of equity.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. If so, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)