(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.4.8.선고 2015누23267 판결

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On January 2, 2015, the defendant revoked the disposition to withdraw the change of the name of a school against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 11, 2006, the Plaintiff applied for the change of the name of the school that changed the name of the “Bniel Arts Middle School” under the Plaintiff’s corporation to “Bniel International Arts Middle School,” and on February 8, 2007, the name of the school was changed by the Defendant on February 8, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “Bniel Arts Middle School”), and the name of the “Bniel International Arts Middle School,” and the name of the school, “Bniniel International Arts Middle School,” and the name of the school with each of the above teachers, “the school of this case.”

B. The Defendant conducted a special audit of the instant school, and found that the Plaintiff violated the purpose of granting authorization for change of the name of the school, which is to train international artists by selecting sexual excellent persons as a method in violation of relevant laws, such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and operating curricula in improper manner. On June 20, 2014, the Defendant issued prior notice on the following grounds, and withdrawn the authorization for change of the name of the instant school on January 2, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

1. Violation of the purpose of modifying the name of a school - A school (a corporation) with respect to the education of global arts and the purpose of nurturing international artists;

2. Failure to implement an order to modify the name of a school (hereinafter referred to as a “corporation”) by failing to comply with the purpose of the amendment of the name of the school (hereinafter referred to as “the title of the school”) which is wholly different from the original purpose of the amendment of the name of the school, and thus violates the purpose of the amendment of the name of the school (hereinafter referred to as the “school”). It is necessary to repeatedly implement the order of the Office of Education to rectify the violation of the law of new students and the operation of the curriculum (8 times) for a long time after the amendment of the name of the school (hereinafter referred to as “the title of the school”). It is necessary to repeatedly revoke the amendment of the name of the school (374 hours in education, English 340 hours in order to ensure that the title of the school, which is the first day after the amendment of the name of the school, and to allow the amendment of the name of the school (hereinafter referred to as the “the title of the school”) to be made for the purpose of the amendment of the name of the international school.

In determining whether the existence of the name of a school is in violation of the public interest, parents of the school is likely to cause serious harm to the public interest in the continuation of the name of the school, such as creating confusion among educational consumers, parents' civil petitions, conflicts in the school, and confusion between students and parents by supporting students with less sexual excellent students related to artistic majors, etc. In addition, even in the case of balancing the legal interests of the (corporate) and the important public interest of the (corporate) in comparison with the name of the school, the use of the term "international" of the (corporate) is not limited to the right of access to the school, and the purpose of establishing the school of the art department is not damaged. Thus, it is judged that there is a need to correct the confusion of the educational consumers who are mistaken for international specialization rather than infringement of the legal interests of the school (corporate) and the establishment of the school is not affected by the law of the school, and thus, it is decided that the establishment of the school's establishment of the school is necessary for the important public interest interest to rectify inevitable violations of the relevant law.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 11 (including each number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Determination as to whether there is no appeal

1) The defendant's defense

The defendant asserts that the judgment of the first instance court becomes final and conclusive upon the withdrawal of the appeal by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's assistant intervenor cannot maintain the appeal against the plaintiff's will, even if the appeal was maintained, the plaintiff's assistant intervenor submitted a written withdrawal of the application for intervention in the co-litigation to the plaintiff's assistant intervenor so that no longer exists.

2) Grounds for filing an appeal

In relation to the process of filing the appeal of this case, the following facts are significant in this court:

① On October 5, 2015, prior to the expiration date of the period for filing a petition of appeal, the Plaintiff’s attorney submitted a petition of appeal to the competent court on October 5, 2015, which was served on the date of receiving the judgment of the first instance court. At the same time, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor submitted a petition of appeal to the competent court on the same day as the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s motion for

② On October 6, 2015, Plaintiff’s attorney submitted a written amendment to the effect that the withdrawal of the appeal, which was submitted before the trial court of the first instance, is not a written withdrawal of the appeal by the supplementary intervenor, but a written amendment to the effect that the withdrawal of the appeal is not a written withdrawal of the appeal by the supplementary intervenor.

③ On October 13, 2015, Plaintiff’s legal representative submitted a petition of appeal to the court of the competent trial to the effect that the part of the co-litigation intervenor is corrected as the supplementary intervenor among the petition of appeal in which the co-litigation intervenor is indicated to the court of competent trial. On November 6, 2015, Plaintiff’s legal representative submitted a letter of delegation at the market price of the Plaintiff’s legal representative to the court of competent trial.

3) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts, the appeal by the participant in the plaintiff's work is legally maintained, and the defendant's defense on the merits is without merit.

① A petition of appeal indicating a joint intervenor submitted on October 5, 2015 by the Plaintiff’s legal representative is deemed to be a petition of appeal by the co-litigants. In light of the fact that the co-litigation and the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor are different from the legal status of the intervenor, and that the application for intervention is separately submitted in this case, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor filed an appeal only by the petition of appeal filed by the joint intervenor. However, in the instant case, the fact that the co-litigation and the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor are the same person; the same day of the filing of the petition of appeal and the application for intervention of the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor are deemed to have been filed with the intention of participating in any form of accurately knowing the legal principles pertaining to the intervention of the parties under the Civil Procedure Act; among them, the submission of the petition of appeal as a joint intervenor is interpreted as having expressed the intent to submit the petition of appeal as the intervenor regardless of the form of intervention of the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor; further, it is reasonable to consider that the written amendment of the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor was not included in the objective appellate.

② Also, in light of the fact that a written withdrawal of an application for intervention in the co-litigation was submitted, but the written application for intervention in the plaintiff’s assistance was submitted separately, and that a petition of appeal indicating a co-litigation intervenor was corrected by the indication of the participant in the plaintiff’s assistance, it is reasonable to interpret that only the portion of the application for intervention in the co-litigation is withdrawn separately from the application for intervention in

(3) In an administrative litigation case, the application of Article 70(2) of the Civil Procedure Act is excluded, and the withdrawal or renunciation of an appeal by the original party does not take effect in relation to the supplementary intervenor (see Supreme Court Decision 70Du35, Jul. 28, 1970). Although the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn an appeal, the appeal by the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor is not withdrawn on this ground.

B. Determination on the legality of participation in assistance

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was admitted before March 1, 2015, and that even if the name of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was changed, the applicable date is March 1, 2015. In the case of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor who entered the school prior to the date of applying the name change, such as the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the current name of the Plaintiff, i.e., the students of the Bniel International Arts Middle School, and thus, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor cannot participate in the instant lawsuit because there is no legal interest as a result of the instant lawsuit.

According to Article 12 of the Framework Act on Education, the basic human rights of students shall be respected and protected in school education, and the educational facilities of schools shall provide that students may fully display their abilities by respecting their personality and emphasizing their personality.

Considering the educational effect that students can learn through the school name in school, and the symbol and influence that the school name gives to students, the school name is integrated with the educational facilities of the school, thereby constituting the educational environment of the students. Therefore, students assigned to elementary and secondary schools and re-schools have the rights or legal interests as students protected by Article 12 of the Framework Act on Education with respect to the school name that constitutes the educational environment of the school.

In particular, pursuant to Article 8 of the Framework Act on Education and Article 68 of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, elementary and secondary education is conducted by compulsory education, and, barring any special circumstance, middle school entrance applicants should enter the middle school assigned by the head of a district office of education without any possibility of any particular choice, so it is necessary to protect the rights or legal interests of middle school which form the educational environment or part of the middle school assigned by compulsory assignment.

On the other hand, as alleged by the Defendant, in the case of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the instant disposition is not possible, and even if the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is currently in school management, as long as the school name is changed to the previous school name, it would be externally recognized as the previous school name and thus, it cannot be deemed that the legal interest in the name of the school solely on the ground of the Defendant’s school management asserted.

Therefore, the supplementary intervenor of the plaintiff, who is the student of the school of this case, has a legal interest in the name of school, so the defendant's defense prior to the merits of this part is without merit.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant disposition is unlawful due to the following substantive defects.

1. ① School name is, in principle, determined by the Plaintiff’s intention, and the Defendant’s authorization is merely an act of completing its validity by supplementing the Plaintiff’s act that designates the name, and thus, the instant disposition that the Defendant arbitrarily changed the name of a school without the original consent is beyond the nature of the authorization and the scope of its acceptance, and it is not permissible as there is no legal basis

② The instant disposition that changed the name of a school without gathering opinions from students, parents, teachers, etc., including the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, etc. infringes on the rights protected by the Constitution and relevant statutes, such as student learning rights, parents’ educational rights, etc.

1. As of the point of time of the instant disposition, the instant disposition was taken without any grounds in that the previous violation was completely corrected and the Plaintiff did not separately commit a violation of law.

2) On October 14, 2013, in the special audit process, which became the opportunity for the disposition of the instant case, the Defendant provided the guidance for the school of the instant case. In this case, the Defendant notified the principal of the school and requested documents after obtaining the permission, despite the fact that the Plaintiff was not notified in advance by the Defendant, and the head of other middle school curriculum department, who is not qualified for the guidance for school inspections, provides the school guidance to the head of other middle school curriculum division, etc. Thus, the disposition of the instant case also violated the procedure.

3) Even if there were some errors in the Plaintiff’s operation of the instant school, the instant disposition, even though it could solve the problem by directly cancelling the erroneous part, violates the principle of proportionality.

(b) Facts of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff established the instant school by obtaining authorization for the establishment of a middle school specialized in art department for the purpose of fostering artists with emotional and aesthetic ability by developing an individual’s artistic talent and talent and providing arts education, such as music, art, dance, etc. at an early stage.

2) On February 8, 2007, the Plaintiff revealed that the purpose of changing the name of a school was not to aim at middle schools specialized in international middle schools and two departments of art and middle schools, rather than to aim at middle schools specialized in international middle schools and international arts and middle schools, and that the purpose of changing the name is to promote international arts and middle schools by fostering professionals suitable for the international era. The Defendant approved the change of the name of a school from the previous school name on February 8, 2007 pursuant to Article 4 of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008), Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21215 of Dec. 31, 2008).

3) The instant school received a warning or corrective order (hereinafter “Corrective Order, etc.”) from the Defendant on several occasions after obtaining authorization for modification of its name. The specific details are as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

4) Meanwhile, the facts verified by the Defendant’s special audit of the instant school are as follows.

① In organizing and operating the three-year curriculum for new students in 201, the instant school operated 510 hours of study and operated 374% more than the base 374 hours, and operated 30% more than the base 374 hours at 442 hours, and operated 30% more than the base 374 hours at 442 hours. Although the instant school’s warning disposition was issued on December 4, 2013, it operated 510 hours of education and 442 hours without corrective measures in organizing and operating the three-year curriculum for new students in 2012.

② When conducting admission screening for new students of the year 2012, the instant school: (a) distributed the interview screening (6.4 points) and personality (3.6 points) to the applicant at the time of interview about 20 minutes prior to the interview, and made the applicant prepare for answers, and (b) allowed the applicant to make an oral statement of the description of the course of the literature before the interview; (c) assigned a maximum of 6.4 points to each 1.6 points; and (d) the personality score was processed to all archers (3.6 points).

③ At the time of the interview of new students in 2013, the school of this case had the applicant prepare the answer about 20 minutes of the interview time, including five-minutes of the interview time, and then had the interview officer make oral statements about the issues before the interview officer, giving up 7 points to the 1.4 points of each door, and selected new students as an alternative written type with interview points reflecting the interview points according to the screening ability of the arche, such as treating the full score (three points), etc.

④ The instant school also selected 25 students expected to be transferred in 2012, 25 students expected to be transferred in 2013, and 14 students expected to be transferred in 2014, and did not conduct the evaluation of the artistic performance, and conducted only the evaluation of academic adaptation ability.

⑤ At the time of the selection of students expected to be transferred in the year of 2012, the instant school, without deliberation by the screening committee for transfer and special admission, approval by the principal of the school, publication website, etc., and selected five students expected to be transferred in the pocket book at ten times, and five times in 2013, respectively. On February 28, 2014, the school selected students scheduled to be transferred to the post without being accompanied by the school principal’s approval and public announcement website. In the course of the selection of two students in the third year, the school was permitted to transfer the number of credits assessed by the competent ○○○ (in this case, the admission of the instant school, March 3, 2014) to a student who was not permitted to be transferred under the regulations.

④ The instant school also reflected items, such as gifted education center, gifted class, curriculum activity, etc. in the field of new students in 2012 through 2014 in the evaluation standards. From the examination of new students in 2012, the instant school also granted 32 to 38.4 points, practical skill screening (50%) 45 to 47 points, interview screening (10%) 2.8 to 10 points, 34.4 points from the document screening (4 to 38.8, practical skill screening (50%) 45.5 to 47 points from the practical skill screening (50%) 10% from the document screening to the new students in 2013, 10 to 34.4 points from the document screening (40%), 45.5 to 47 points from the practical skill screening (50%) 10% from the document screening (50% from the interview), 10 to 30.41% from the document screening type (50% from the document screening type).

5) In the Busan metropolitan area, there are Busan Arts Middle School and the instant schools as middle schools specialized in art department. From 2013 to 2015, the current status of admission to high schools, such as art high schools, is indicated as the current status of admission to high schools in attached Form 2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 9-1, 3, Eul evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 1 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

D. Determination on the legality of the disposition

1) Judgment on the assertion of substantive defects

Although there was no particular defect at the time of the disposition, and there was no separate legal ground for the withdrawal of the disposition after the disposition, the disposition agency that rendered an administrative act may withdraw the change of circumstances that became unnecessary to continue the original disposition, or where the need for important public interest arises (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu1194, Jun. 9, 1995; 2003Du7606, Jul. 22, 2004). The same applies to the instant disposition, which is a supplementary act that satisfies the legal effect of the basic act, which is an authorized disposition that is a supplementary act that loses its validity.

In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts and evidence as seen earlier, it is necessary for the Defendant to maintain the authorization to change the name of the school to the Plaintiff and to withdraw the authorization to change the name of the previous school. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① After changing the name of the school, the Plaintiff has repeatedly recruited new students by dividing them into international teams and art groups in violation of the recruitment outline of new students in order to select outstanding students with outstanding academic achievement rather than fostering artistic talent. This violates the purpose of establishing the school of this case and the purpose of changing the name of the school of this case.

② As a result, the students and parents of the instant school did not recognize the instant school as a middle school specialized in the arts department, that is, the content assigned to the establishment purpose, namely, an international middle school specialized in the international department for sexual outstanding students. As a result, the students and parents of the instant school led to confusion in the establishment title of the instant school to students and parents of the instant school, and thus, it is necessary to correct it.

③ The number of graduates of the instant school is limited to seven for the year 2014, and the number of students enrolled in the art high school or foreign language is considerable in the year 2015, and in fact, the art department does not function as a school. In light of the fact that such operation was caused and deepens after the change of the name of the instant school, it is necessary to correct the name of the school because it is highly likely that a school operator operated a school, such as an international specialized middle school, by using the title "international" in the name of the relevant school.

④ As of January 2, 2015, the date of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff was set for all existing violations as of January 2, 2015, and there was no violation as of the date of the instant disposition. However, since the Plaintiff did not yet recruit new students during 2015 as of the date of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s act of selecting new students in 2014, for example, the Plaintiff did not conduct the evaluation of the arts performance and conducted only the evaluation of the ability to adapt to studies without conducting the evaluation of the arts performance. In addition, in the selection of new students, the Plaintiff selected the students without the screening procedure, such as the school principal’s approval and publication website, and the selection of new students, the Plaintiff did not set the scores in the actual examination, but did not set the scores in the document screening type and interview type, rather than the actual examination type, and thus, it was determined that the previous corrective order was not corrected at the time of the instant disposition.

⑤ The instant disposition is based on the change in the name of the school and the Plaintiff’s act of running the instant school beyond the purpose of the establishment and the purpose of the change in the name of the school. Therefore, it is not necessarily necessary to undergo the consent procedure of students, parents of students, etc... Moreover, it cannot be said that the instant disposition may infringe upon the rights and interests of students, parents, etc. of students, or other statutory rights and interests on the ground that the instant school is operated in compliance with the original purpose of establishment and the purpose of the change in the name of the school. Rather, the instant disposition can correct the registered students, parents’ misunderstanding, prejudice, and confusion as to the purpose of the establishment of the instant school or the purpose of the change in the name of the school,

2) Determination of procedural defect assertion

School inspections based on Article 7 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act are administrative actions that the Superintendent of an Office of Education provides guidance, recommendation, etc. on the operation of curricula and teaching and learning methods to schools under his/her jurisdiction, and fall under an act of fact that does not directly generate legal effects. The mere statement of evidence No. 25 on October 14, 2013 is insufficient to recognize that the above procedure against the school inspections conducted by the Defendant on October 14, 2013. In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, even if the school inspections conducted by the Superintendent of an Office of Education violates the procedure as alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed unlawful in the disposition of this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Determination on the assertion of violation of the principle of proportionality

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts and evidence seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition violates the proportionality is without merit.

① In order to select the outstanding students of learning achievement, the Plaintiff continued to reflect the recruitment outline of new students, and the Defendant issued a corrective order repeatedly.

② According to Article 63 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, if a corrective order is not complied with, the act of violation may be revoked or suspended, the number of students of the relevant school shall be reduced, the number of classes or departments shall be reduced, the number of students shall be suspended, or the enrollment of students shall be suspended. However, the disposition of abolition of a department or the suspension of student enrollment shall be taken to make it impracticable to operate the school, and the number of classes per school year of the instant school is too heavy, and the reduction of the number of students shall also be practically difficult to take into account only three.

③ On the contrary, the instant disposition withdrawing the authorization for change of the name of a school is to use the name of the school before the change, which does not affect the financial situation or the student quota of the instant school, and thus does not cause difficulties in the operation of the school itself, but it is an appropriate measure that may bring about the effect of preventing parents from being misled that the instant school is an international specialized middle school (only if the Plaintiff continues to commit relevant violations despite the instant disposition, then the measure under Article 63 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act may be considered).

④ The public interest, such as preventing confusion in the educational field and establishing desirable educational order, to be achieved by the instant disposition, cannot be said to be small compared to any disadvantage that the Plaintiff may suffer.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges

Kim Jong-cheon (Presiding Judge)

Clinical Citizens

Note Notes:

Site of separate sheet

[Attachment 1]

Relevant statutes

Framework Act on Education

Article 8 (Compulsory Education)

(1) Compulsory education shall be elementary education for 6 years and secondary education for 3 years.

(2) All citizens shall have the right to receive the compulsory education under paragraph (1).

Article 12 (Learners)

(1) Fundamental human rights of learners including students shall be respected and protected in the process of school education or social education.

(2) Contents of education, educational methods, teaching materials and educational facilities shall be provided in such a way that any learner's abilities can be displayed to the maximum extent by respecting his/her personality and emphasizing his/her personality.

Gu Elementary and Secondary Education Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008)

Article 4 (Establishment, etc. of Schools)

(1) A person who intends to establish a school shall meet the standards for establishment prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as facilities and equipment.

shall be subject to such order.

(3) A person who establishes and operates a private school intends to close the school or modify important matters prescribed by Presidential Decree.

In cases of the superintendent of the Office of Education, it shall be authorized.

Article 7 (School Inspections)

The Minister of Education and Human Resources Development and the Superintendent of an Office of Education may present school inspections on the operation of curricula and teaching and learning methods.

Article 8 (School Regulations)

(1) The head of a school (where a person establishes a school, the person who intends to establish the school) shall be within the extent of Acts and subordinate statutes.

Secretary-General and supervisory agencies (in the case of national schools, the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development, and in the case of public and private schools, the superintendent of education.

(c) The competent authorities may establish school regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "school regulations") with authorization granted by the competent authorities;

Article 63 (Order for Correction or Modification)

(1) The competent authorities shall issue an order or order issued pursuant to education-related Acts and subordinate statutes or pursuant to education concerning facilities, equipment, classes, school affairs and other matters

Where school regulations are violated, correction or modification thereof shall be made within a fixed period of time by the founder, operator, or head of a school.

order.

(2) The competent agency shall, upon receiving an order for correction or modification under paragraph (1), transfer it within the period designated without any justifiable cause.

In cases where a person fails to perform his/her duty, such violation shall be revoked or suspended under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Article 3 (Application for Authorization of Establishment of Private Schools) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21215, Dec. 31, 2008) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21215, Dec. 31, 2008)

A person who intends to obtain authorization to establish a private school pursuant to Article 4 (2) of the Act shall file an application with the Special Metropolitan City, a Metropolitan City, or the Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education (hereinafter referred to as the "superintendent of education") by submitting documents (including electronic documents) stating the following matters: Provided, That where information on required documents can be confirmed through joint use of administrative information under Article 21 (1) of the Act on the Promotion of the Digitalization of Administrative Affairs, etc. for Creation of Electronic Government, such confirmation may substitute for the required documents:

1. Objectives;

2. Name;

3. Location;

4. School regulations;

(hereinafter omitted)

Article 5 (Application for Authorization on Change of Private Schools)

(1) The term “important matters determined by the Presidential Decree” in Article 4 (3) of the Act means the founder of a school, and subparagraphs 1 through 5 of Article 3.

Matters referred to in subparagraphs 7, 8, and 10.

(2) The founder and operator of a private school who intends to obtain authorization for modification pursuant to Article 4 (3) of the Act shall:

An application shall be filed with the superintendent of education with the mentioned documents.

1. Ground for change;

2. Modification.

3. Date of modification.

Article 68 (Methods for Entering Middle Schools)

(1) The head of a district office of education shall assign schools to which the applicants for entrance of middle schools may enter by lot by region and school group, and street traffic.

In the case of an area extremely poor for school attendance, schools to be admitted shall be allocated according to the middle school district established by the Superintendent of an Office of Education.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (amended by Act No. 11384, Mar. 21, 2012)

Article 4 (Establishment, etc. of Schools)

(1) A person who intends to establish a school shall meet the standards for establishment prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as facilities and equipment.

shall be authorized by the Commission.

(3) Where a founder and operator of a private school intends to close a school or change important matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, he/she shall do so

The authorization of land reduction shall be obtained.

Article 7 (School Inspections)

The superintendent of the Office of Education shall provide guidance on the operation of curricula and teaching and learning methods to schools in his/her jurisdiction.

Article 8 (School Regulations)

(1) The head of a school (where a person establishes a school, the person who intends to establish the school) shall discipline the school within the extent of statutes.

Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "school regulations") may be enacted or amended.

(2) Matters necessary for entries of school regulations, procedures for enactment and amendment thereof, etc. shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(1) The competent authorities shall Acts and subordinate statutes related to education, or such Acts and subordinate statutes, concerning facilities, equipment, classes, school affairs and other matters, for schools.

Where an order or school regulations are violated, a fixed period of time shall be the founder, operator, or the head of a school.

order a correction or change.

(2) The competent agency shall, in receipt of an order for correction or modification under paragraph (1), file such order within the period designated without justifiable grounds.

If a school fails to conduct such activities, the violation shall be revoked or suspended, and the student quota of the school shall be determined by Presidential Decree.

Measures, such as reduction of class or department, reduction or closure of class or department, or suspension of student recruitment, may be taken. The Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25961, Jan. 6, 2015) shall be applied to the relevant administrative agency.

Article 3 (Application for Authorization on Establishment of Private Schools)

A person who intends to obtain authorization to establish a private school pursuant to Article 4 (2) of the Act shall file an application with the Special Metropolitan City, a Metropolitan City, or the Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education (hereinafter referred to as the "superintendent of education") by submitting a document (including an electronic document) stating the following matters. In such cases, the superintendent of education shall verify a cadastral map of school site trainees and a register of school juristic persons by sharing administrative information under Article 36 (1) of the Electronic Government Act

1. Objectives;

2. Name;

3. Location;

4. School regulations;

(hereinafter omitted)

Article 5 (Application for Authorization on Change of Private Schools)

(1) "Important matters prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 4 (3) of the Act means a founder of a school, cadastral map and land for school sites and training areas.

Matters referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 3, 5, 8 and 10 of Article 3.

(2) The founder and operator of a private school who intends to obtain authorization for modification pursuant to Article 4 (3) of the Act shall:

An application shall be filed with the superintendent of education with the documents stated therein.

1. Ground for change;

2. Modification.

3. Date of modification.

Article 68 (Methods of Entering Middle Schools)

(1) The head of a district office of education shall assign schools to which applicants for entrance of middle schools may enter by lot by school group by region and by school group.

In the case of an area extremely poor for school attendance, schools to be admitted shall be assigned according to the middle school district established by the Superintendent of an Office of Education.

Status of high school entrance;

A person shall be appointed.

심급 사건

-부산지방법원 2015.9.18.선고 2015구합20566

부산고등법원 2016.4.8.선고 2015누23267

참조조문