(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.11.2. 선고 2017구합50126 판결

1. We dismiss the part of the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of non-recognition of evaluation and non-recognition of child development subjects, among the instant lawsuits, of the police administration, the criminal administration, the introduction of law, the introduction of social welfare, the introduction of social welfare, the field training of social welfare,

2. On March 11, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition not to grant evaluation to the Plaintiff’s branch office, with the exception of the subjects indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1), shall be revoked.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Purport of claim

On March 11, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of non-recognition of evaluation against the Plaintiff’s branch office is revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for the assessment of the unit of study on the basis of attending a credit bank system in 2015 pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Act on Recognition of Credits, Etc. (hereinafter “Recognition of Credits Act”), with the Defendant on August 31, 2015 as a vocational training training establishment under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not supplement the defective documents within the filing period, the Plaintiff rejected the application.

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above return disposition and filed an administrative appeal, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission accepted the above request for adjudication, the Defendant conducted a field evaluation on February 24, 2016 and the Plaintiff’s branch office on recognition of the course of study.

C. As a result of the on-site assessment on March 11, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition not to grant recognition for all of 20 learning subjects (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition”) written by the Plaintiff on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff’s branch points fall short of 99 points with the base point of 105 (70% of the base point of 150%) among the evaluation areas (the basic requirement areas, the operational conditions areas, and the field of learning); and (b) some learning points, such as the list of the application subjects in attached Form 2015, fall short of 105 points with the base point of 105 and fall short of the base point of deliberation by the Recognition of Credits Deliberation Committee; and (c) the Plaintiff’s branch points (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition”).

D. On May 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the appeal was dismissed on September 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, evidence 23 through 25, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

Of the instant study subjects, there is no interest in litigation to dispute the instant disposition related to the assessment and approval of 2015 with respect to the police opening theory, police administration theory, criminal administration theory, law opening theory, social welfare opening theory, field training in social welfare, and child development seven subjects which the Plaintiff had been assessed in 2016. Even if the instant disposition is revoked, it is not automatically evaluated as to the instant study subject, but can only be assessed by proving that the Plaintiff satisfies each standard point in the area of operational conditions and study field, respectively. However, since the Plaintiff has already been verified that the standard point was met in the area of operational conditions through the assessment and approval of 2016, it is not necessary to retroactively seek the revocation of the instant disposition regarding the assessment and approval of 2015, which was based on the lack of operational conditions, but it is not necessary to have the remainder of the subjects (hereinafter referred to as "the aforementioned subjects") excluding the above subjects subject subject subject which was assessed in 2016 among the instant study. Accordingly, it is not possible to seek the revocation of the assessment and approval of the instant assessment.

B. Determination

A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an administrative disposition is a lawsuit seeking the restoration to the original state by removing an illegal state arising from the disposition, and protecting or remedying the rights and interests infringed or interfered with the disposition. Thus, if such an illegal state has been removed due to changes after the disposition and the infringement of rights and interests has been resolved, there is no legal interest to seek

After the instant disposition, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff applied for the assessment and assessment of seven subjects of police opening theory, police administration theory, criminal administration theory, law opening theory, social welfare opening theory, social welfare opening theory, field training in the field of social welfare, and child development, and received the assessment and assessment by applying for the assessment and assessment of the class-based learning course in the attendance of the Credit Bank System in 2016. As such, there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the instant disposition as to the said seven subjects, which

However, as seen below in the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff does not only assert whether the conditions of operation are met or illegality as the grounds for illegality of the disposition of this case, but also asserts that the disposition of this case violates obligations such as the presentation of reasons and the publication of disposition standards under the Administrative Procedures Act, or that the evaluation criteria of individual learning and items are unjustifiable. Thus, in the event that reexamination of the application of this case is conducted upon acceptance of such assertion, the defendant is deemed to satisfy not only the standard points in the operation environment but also the standard points in the area of learning field in the course of re-evaluation of the operation environment and the field of learning through the process of establishing appropriate evaluation criteria, and there is a possibility that some of the other subjects will ultimately be evaluated and approved. Accordingly, the plaintiff has a legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case.

Ultimately, the part of the plaintiff's claim for the revocation of the evaluation non-approval disposition for the above seven subjects which was evaluated and approved in 2016 is unlawful, and the defendant's defense before the merits is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

3. Whether the disposition of this case relating to the remaining subjects is legitimate;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Defendant violated Article 20 of the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to set and publicly announce the detailed criteria for dispositions by evaluation index applicable to the evaluation and assessment. In addition, the Defendant, while 150 points out of 150 points in the area of operational conditions, presented only the reasons for partial evaluation items, without specifically presenting the points of each item and the reasons for decline, and violated Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to present sufficient reasons for the evaluation items of the area of study area.

2) Contents defects

The Defendant applied unfair evaluation standards to evaluate the areas of operational conditions and the areas of learning, such as setting up and evaluating the evaluation index for the areas of operational conditions and the areas of learning beyond the scope delegated by the statutes, etc.. The Plaintiff is a high-level educational institution that expands facility investment and has a highest level of teaching staff, and thus, is unable to recruit new students due to the instant disposition, and the Plaintiff is unable to hear the number of students who want to receive credits from the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant disposition violates the principle of proportionality, since the disadvantages suffered by the Plaintiff and the students are enormous compared to the public interest to be achieved by the instant disposition, the instant disposition violates the principle of proportionality.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act is violated

A) Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that "the administrative agency shall determine and publicly announce the necessary disposition standards in detail in light of the nature of the relevant disposition," and Article 20(2) of the same Act provides that "the public announcement of the disposition standards under paragraph (1) may not be made in cases where it is considerably difficult in light of the nature of the relevant disposition or where there are reasonable grounds that it is deemed that the public announcement of the disposition standards under paragraph (1) significantly undermines the safety and welfare of the public." The purpose of this system is to prevent the arbitrary exercise of authority by the administrative agency, thereby ensuring the transparency and predictability of administration. As such, the administrative agency is obliged to establish and publicly announce the disposition standards to the maximum extent possible, as long as the nature of the relevant disposition permits (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du5148, Aug. 25,

In addition, Article 3 (5) of the Act on Recognition of Credits provides that "qualifications of professors and instructors necessary for recognition of evaluation, details of standards for evaluation evaluation, such as learning facilities and learning facilities, and details of study courses, shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree," and each subparagraph of Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the detailed standards for evaluation and evaluation shall be determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education for the number of professors and instructors under paragraph (1), detailed standards for the number of learning facilities, learning facilities and learning courses, and other matters necessary for evaluation and evaluation shall be determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education," and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that "the detailed standards for evaluation and evaluation shall be determined by the Minister of Education in addition to the matters prescribed in paragraph (

B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence No. 2, the defendant posted and publicly announced a master plan for the assessment of the Credit Bank System (hereinafter "master plan of this case") on the homepage of the Credit Bank System around July 2015, and notified the head of each education and training institution thereof, and made and distributed a report of the application for the assessment of the credit Bank System-based study unit (hereinafter "master plan of this case") around August 2015, 2015. The basic plan of this case and the manual of this case are different in comparison with the evaluation items and the evaluation index of each item from the evaluation items in 2014. The basic plan of this case and the manual of this case can be acknowledged that the evaluation field and the evaluation index of the following contents are presented as to the evaluation field and the study (learning process) evaluation field:

○ Field of Assessment of Operating Conditions (4) and Assessment Indices (16), 16

○ Study Process Evaluation Area: Evaluation Area (three) and Evaluation Indices (9), ;

(1) If there is an item determined inappropriate among the evaluation field of basic requirements (105 points), among the indexes of quantitative evaluation* 70% or more of the full grade (150 points), if there is an item determined inappropriate among the evaluation areas of basic requirements, (1) if there is an item determined inappropriate among the evaluation areas of basic requirements, it is less than 70% (105 points) of the full grade of 150 out of the total evaluation area of the operation condition of the application, if the total evaluation area of the study process inappropriate and operation condition is below 60% of the full grade of the total evaluation area of the study process inappropriate and operation condition, it is less than 70% (105 points) of the full grade of 150 out of the total evaluation area of study

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant specifically determined and publicly announced the criteria for assessment and approval prior to the instant disposition, and the publication of such criteria does not seem to have a considerable reason to significantly impede the nature of the relevant disposition or significantly undermine the safety and welfare of the public. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful as it violates Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

① It is difficult to understand the minimum standards that can be assessed even when examining the instant basic plan and the instant manual. In particular, where the assessment point is less than 70% (105 points) out of 150 points in the assessment of operational conditions, the assessment point becomes an important factor as to whether the assessment point for all subjects applied regardless of the score in the field of learning is assessed or not. In comparison with the year 2014, the Defendant only somewhat concretes the assessment criteria in that it disclosed the allocation of points by the assessment items in comparison with the assessment items, but did not disclose the criteria for allocation by the detailed assessment items or by each assessment index of the assessment items. For instance, even though the Defendant did not present all necessary standards for determining whether the Plaintiff’s allocation of points by the evaluation items is reasonable, it is difficult to use the evaluation items to determine which degree it is more than 40 points in the calculation items and the rate of educational expenses compared to the tuition fees, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to determine which degree it is reasonable to obtain the evaluation items in its own way and to determine which degree it is appropriate.

② The Defendant alleged that it is easy for the Plaintiff to easily understand the key point of preparation, attachment, and keeping of the instant manual, as the description of the “line for Preparation,” and the “materials for Entry and Keeping” in the instant manual is somewhat ambiguous to indicate in detail the allocation criteria. However, it is only possible for the Plaintiff to abstractly affect the acquisition of points and the contents of the guidelines for preparation, attachment, and keeping materials, etc. of the instant manual, which are known by the description of evidence No. 2, to make it difficult to find the best method or clear criteria for obtaining high points. In fact, the Defendant, while rendering the instant disposition, pointed out that the classification by functional category of administrative staff is somewhat ambiguous, so it is necessary to distinguish the administrative staff from the administrative staff, teachers, and instructors, and to distinguish them from each other. However, the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, did not have any relative administrative staff member to any extent that he/she is able to obtain points to some extent or to any extent that he/she did not have any adverse effect on the administrative staff’s own evaluation index and management personnel’s own position.

③ In a case where the detailed criteria for assessment and recognition are publicly announced in advance, there are concerns that an educational institution’s qualitative decline may occur by intending to meet minimum requirements, but this problem is not an appropriate method to keep the evaluation and accreditation closed by raising the evaluation and accreditation standards so that the educational institution satisfies appropriate requirements. The evaluation and accreditation system is an absolute evaluation that allows the relevant educational institution to obtain the evaluation and accreditation, and the purpose of enacting the Act on Recognition of Credits is to recognize the credits of the persons who have completed the course of study who have undergone the evaluation and accreditation, which form the basis for the recognition of academic background and the acquisition of degrees, thereby expanding opportunities for access to education for the class of class who has been alienated in the field of high school education, and accordingly, the evaluation and accreditation system is also reasonable in light of the fact that the purpose is to enable the educational institution to provide quality education to the class by meeting all the conditions such as human and physical facilities required by the Act and subordinate statutes on Recognition of Credits.

2) Whether Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act is violated

Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall provide the basis and reasons for the disposition to the parties when rendering a disposition. This purport is to exclude the arbitrary decision of the administrative agency and allow the parties to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure. Thus, the grounds and the degree of presentation of reasons for the disposition should be sufficiently known as to which grounds and reasons the parties were given at the time of the disposition, by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the written disposition, relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the overall process, etc. up to the time of the disposition, and thus, it should be sufficient to determine whether the disposition was made for any reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du18571, Nov. 14,

According to the records in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant, while rendering the disposition in this case, presented the reasons why he gave 9 points to the plaintiff in the area of operational conditions as follows. The defendant presented the overall points to some subjects for each subject, but did not present the detailed evaluation items or evaluation index points for each subject, and it is recognized that the defendant stated matters that are insufficient or supplemented in the form of lectures only with regard to "the appropriateness of the class goals and plans, which account for 50 points out of the total points 150 points for each subject."

Since the division by series of classes of administrative staff is somewhat ambiguous, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between administrative staff and instructors by clarifying the affairs in charge.

-A on the application shall be classified as administrative staff and B shall be classified as teachers and lecturers, and B shall be evaluated.In terms of the appropriateness of the operation of the Do curriculum and the operation of the curriculum, it is necessary to systematically evaluate the subjects subject to assessment and assessment in order to systematically conduct the evaluation clause of lectures. The evaluation clause of lectures is to be organized, and relevant evidence such as the implementation of the evaluation provision of teachers and instructors is to be accumulated and managed.It is necessary to clearly and systematically implement plans for various elements, such as specialization of the education and training institution-specialized training institution, quality management, support for learners, management of the quality of students, etc.

In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the above facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the instant disposition was a considerable obstacle to the Plaintiff’s moving toward an administrative remedy procedure due to the Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction, as it did not present the grounds for the instant disposition and the grounds therefor. The instant disposition violated Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

① The Defendant, while rendering the instant disposition, stated that the Plaintiff did not pass the assessment because the Plaintiff’s total points obtained from the Plaintiff in the assessment items of operational conditions and partial learning subjects are less than 105 points, and only those parts of them were insufficient or supplemented with respect to the assessment items and evaluation indexes, and did not disclose how the Plaintiff calculated the specific points and its points obtained by the Plaintiff for each overall assessment index based on any factual basis. Therefore, the Plaintiff could not know how the total points were derived or how the process was conducted.

If the facts underlying the disposition, specific evaluation results, and the method of calculating points are not presented, the Plaintiff does not have any way to know the error, even if there was an error in the method of calculating points based on the facts mistakenly known by the Defendant. In particular, in addition to the application and evidentiary materials submitted by the Plaintiff, if the application and evidentiary materials submitted by the Plaintiff are deemed basic materials for the disposition in addition to the results of the on-site investigation conducted by the person in charge of the National Institute of Lifelong Education under the Defendant, the Plaintiff

② In addition, if the Defendant did not publish the criteria for disposition in advance as in the instant case, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to specifically predict the points that the Defendant can obtain by itself based on the content of the Act on Recognition of Credits, the instant basic plan, and the instant manual, and thus, the Defendant needs to further present the reasons and grounds for disposition. Nevertheless, the Defendant presented the instant disposition form only the reasons for 35 points out of the total points acquired by the Plaintiff and the 16 evaluation indexes consisting of 150 points in the evaluation field of operational conditions, and provided only the reasons for 50 points out of the 150 point in the 150 point in the 150 point in the 150 point in the 150 point in the 19 evaluation field. In addition, even if the 3 evaluation indexes consisting of the 3 evaluation indexes presented by the Defendant, it cannot be seen that the 50 point in the 150 point in the 150 point in the 190 point in the 190 point in the 190 point in the 3 evaluation field were properly assessed.

③ In full view of the contents indicated in the instant disposition and the overall process up to the disposition of this case, the Plaintiff was unable to specifically identify the facts and the criteria for calculating points by evaluation index, the Plaintiff’s acquisition details by evaluation index, and the reasons for the disposition. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff did not properly have been given an opportunity to contest the disposition of this case.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful due to the existence of such procedural defects as above. Therefore, without having to further examine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the part on the remaining subjects of the instant disposition should be revoked.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case, which seeks revocation of the disposition not to recognize the development of children, such as the introduction of police science, police administration science, criminal administration science, theory of opening of law, theory of opening of social welfare, field training in social welfare, and child development, shall be dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff shall be accepted for the reasons as above.