The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal on whether the Plaintiff is a party, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, deems it as follows: recognition of social education facilities registered and designated under the provisions of the former Social Education Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6003, Aug. 31, 1999) (Lifelong Education Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6003, Aug. 31, 199

(B) The lower court determined that there was a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the Defendant’s revocation of the designation of educational recognition facilities for BJ and the revocation of BJ recruitment suspension (hereinafter the above dispositions collectively referred to as “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff, who actually succeeded to the status of the installer of B high school (hereinafter referred to as “B”), which was a party B.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the standing to sue in the revocation lawsuit against administrative disposition.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on whether the instant disposition was abused or abused from discretionary power

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant issued the disposition in this case on the grounds that (1) it is improper to manage school buildings and school sites (hereinafter "the ground for disposition No. 1"), the ground that "school life guidance improper" (hereinafter "the ground for disposition No. 2") and "inappropriate to manage school accounts" (hereinafter "the ground for disposition No. 3"), and (2) as to the ground for disposition No. 1, and as to the ground for disposition No. 2, the point at which the defendant was designated as a school educational establishment by the defendant as the school teacher and school site installer of the lifelong educational establishment, which was enacted by Presidential Decree No. 15483, Sep. 23, 1997; hereinafter "the ground for disposition No. 2")