1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff was the chief director of a school foundation B (hereinafter “B”) (hereinafter “B”).

B. On July 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) arbitrarily used KRW 1,828,972,457 for B’s fundamental property for profit (cash) from 2012 to 2014 without the deliberation and resolution of the board of directors and the competent agency’s permission; (b) caused property loss equivalent to B’s amount (hereinafter “instant disposition cause”); and (c) issued a disposition revoking the approval of taking office against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 20-2(1)1 and (2) of the Private School Act; and Article 9-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on March 25, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff disposed of the fundamental property for profit-making purposes B without deliberation and resolution by the board of directors and permission (or report) by the competent authorities, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not cause losses to the property of the school juristic person by repaying debts or paying expenses in connection with the normal business affairs of B; (b) 15 of the Plaintiff’s 18 of the details of voluntary disposition is not subject to permission of the Office of Education; (c) the Plaintiff’s substantial portion of the basic property for profit-making purposes was recovered or is expected to be recovered; (d) the Plaintiff’s embezzlement or private use of the basic property for profit-making purposes was not useful; and (e) the Plaintiff contributed significantly

B. Relevant statutes are attached thereto.