(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.11.27. 선고 2015구합61368 판결

1. On January 27, 2015, the Defendant’s failure to comply with an application for evaluation and assessment by a distance-based learning unit filed with the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 2007, the Plaintiff established a 'panty remote lifelong education center', and operated the distance lifelong education course by obtaining evaluation and approval from the Defendant pursuant to the law on credit settlement, etc.

B. On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for re-evaluation of the total of 41 learning subjects to the Defendant.

C. On January 27, 2015, the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to pass all of the learning courses applied by the Plaintiff on the ground that the operating conditions fall short of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection on February 5, 2015, but the Defendant responded on April 1, 2015 to the effect that there is no change in the results of the expert examination.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall determine and publicly announce the necessary disposition standards in detail in light of the nature of the relevant disposition. Article 20(2) of the same Act provides that an administrative agency may choose not to publicly announce the disposition standards in cases where the publication of the disposition standards under paragraph (1) is difficult in light of the nature of the relevant disposition or where there are reasonable grounds to deem that the public

B. As to the criteria for evaluation and recognition, Article 3(5) of the former Act on Recognition of Credits (amended by Act No. 1329, Mar. 27, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "Recognition of Credits Act") provides that the qualifications of professors or instructors, learning facilities, learning courses, and contents of learning courses which are the criteria for recognition of evaluation shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Recognition of Credits Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26549, Sep. 25, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Recognition of Credits Act") provides that the criteria for recognition under each subparagraph of paragraph (1) shall be outlined, and the detailed criteria for evaluation and recognition under paragraph (2) shall be set by the Minister of Education for 10 years, 20 years, 4 years, and 4 years, 4 years, and 4 years, 4 years, and 4 years, and 4 years, 2000, etc. of the former Enforcement Rule of the Recognition Act.

C. In light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned facts and evidence, and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7, and the result of this court’s perusal and examination of the evaluation data against the plaintiff non-disclosure, the instant disposition did not publicly announce the criteria for evaluation and assessment, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that the public announcement of the criteria for assessment and assessment is considerably difficult due to the nature of the pertinent disposition, or that the public announcement of the criteria for disposition is considerably detrimental to public safety and welfare. The instant disposition issued on the ground that the non-public disposal standards of the defendant did not meet the criteria for assessment in such circumstances is excessively harsh to the plaintiff in light of the following circumstances, and thus, is unlawful.

① Even when examining both the Act on Recognition of Credits, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the basic plan and the evaluation manual of this case, it is difficult for an institution subject to evaluation, such as the Plaintiff, to find out the minimum standards available

(2) The evaluation and recognition system is to ensure that the target educational institutions have various conditions, including human and physical facilities required by the Act on Recognition of Credits and related Acts and subordinate statutes, and provide high-quality education to students. Therefore, it is reasonable to encourage the relevant educational institutions to provide more specific standards for the evaluation and recognition so that they can have conditions, such as facilities higher than a certain level.

(3) The evaluation and accreditation system is not a structure that restricts the number of educational institutions that can receive the evaluation and accreditation, and it is not an absolute evaluation that can receive the evaluation and accreditation if a certain degree of points is higher than that of the educational institutions, but it is not a dispute between the parties concerned. If the evaluation and accreditation standards or minimum standards are closed to the public, it is difficult to prevent the evaluation party from arbitrary judgment. Even if the actual evaluation data include items that clearly set the evaluation criteria in figures, but it is difficult to exclude the possibility of arbitrary judgment as they include items different according to unclear standards, such as insufficient, insufficient, insufficient, insufficient, normal, high-quality, high-quality, high-quality, etc.

(4) The defendant, when preparing a minimum standard, concerns over the qualitative decline of an education institution for assessment recognition. However, if an education institution meets the minimum standard of assessment recognition, the part seems to be a problem that should be resolved by raising the standard of assessment recognition to the extent that it can be deemed appropriate for education, or by selecting an educational institution to improve the quality of the education institution itself, or by allowing the education institution to gather more evaluation standards, and it is not a problem that can be achieved by using anxietys that can not measure the evaluation evaluation and recognition.

(5) An educational institution shall invest a considerable number of human resources and material resources in order to obtain the evaluation and accreditation. In a situation where it is difficult to predict whether a person passed the evaluation and accreditation standards already published, such an investment is difficult to be actively made. Rather, when it is possible to forecast business feasibility, an investment in the institution is more actively made and it also seems to conform to

6. The Plaintiff had already been in operation of the course of study with the evaluation recognition, and was subject to a disposition of failure due to the failure to meet the standards in some items although it had met the conditions of most evaluation recognition criteria. If it was possible to know in advance the evaluation criteria in detail, it seems that the Plaintiff filed an application by supplementing them.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.