1. All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The first instance.

1. The grounds asserted by the Defendants in the trial of the first instance are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Defendants in the first instance court, and the judgment of the first instance court rejecting the Defendants’ assertion is justifiable even if both the evidence and the entire purport of the pleadings submitted in the first instance court are examined.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of some contents as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The "Enforcement Decree" of the second third column of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25375, Jun. 11, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply)".

The third fourth sentence of the first instance court's decision "H" in the fourth sentence shall be deemed "H stock company".

The third "Defendant" in the fifth below the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be "Defendants," "Defendants," "Defendants," "sixth and lowest," "Defendants," and "Defendants," the second and fourth reduction of which are referred to in the fifth below, shall be deemed to be "Defendants," respectively.

The term "registration of change (report)" in the tenthth sentence of the first instance court shall be read as "registration of change (report)".

Under the 12th sentence of the first instance court, the "156 won (15.0% increase)" of the fifth sentence is "156 won (15.0% increase)".

제1심 판결문 제14쪽 아래에서 둘째 줄의 “수강료가 돠하다는”을 “수강료가 과하다는”으로 고친다.

Then, “I am.......” of the 17th lecture decision of the first instance, “However, it is reasonable to determine whether the amount of a branch equivalent to 70% from the lowest tuition to the highest tuition as a result of the examination of the previous base of the Seoul Southern District Office of Education, which is higher than the standard set by the Defendant, is excessive, or the price increase per se, compared with the previous year.