2017Guhap82093 Demand for correction, etc.

1. A school juristic person;

2. President of UNIST;

1. C

2. D.

The Minister of Education

September 24, 2020

December 10, 2020

1. Of the instant lawsuit, “the part on which the Defendant sought revocation of each agency warning relating to the Plaintiff B Universities and Colleges” shall be dismissed on July 24, 2017.

2. Each disposition that the Defendant issued to the president of the Plaintiff B University on July 24, 2017 (attached Form 2) to the president of the Plaintiff B University on July 24, 2017.

[Attachment 3] The part of the "Revocation List" shall be revoked.

3. All claims filed by Plaintiff A and the president of Plaintiff B, respectively, shall be dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion relating to the participation by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (Appointed Party) shall be borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Each disposition written by the Defendant to the president of the Plaintiff B University on July 24, 2017 (attached Form 2 / 2) and each disposition written by the Plaintiff A on November 22, 2017 (attached Form 2) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 6, 1979, Plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A”) was established as a “university B of a school foundation” for the purpose of teaching and researching professional knowledge and theories on unemployment and fostering professionals necessary for national social development. On November 5, 2018, the name was changed as of November 5, 2018. Under its control, Plaintiff B of a university (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) is establishing and operating a junior college under Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Private School Act. Plaintiff B of a university (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) is the president of the university of this case.

B. From December 1, 2016 to December 6, 2016, and from April 11, 2017 to April 13, 2017, the Defendant conducted an inspection of actual conditions of the university’s school affairs, teachers’ personnel management, accounting management, etc. (hereinafter “inspection of actual condition”).

C. Based on the result of the inspection of actual conditions of this case, the Defendant issued a disposition to take a corrective measure and submit the result thereof to the Plaintiff president by August 24, 2017 on the grounds as stated in the grounds for the “reason for Disposition” under Article 60(1) of the former Higher Education Act (amended by Act No. 15038, Nov. 28, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) on July 24, 2017 (excluding the part of each heavy disciplinary measure against the president of the Plaintiff, warnings, warnings and demands for correction to the president of the university of this case, and notification).

[Written Disposition]

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

D. On November 22, 2017, the Defendant issued a written disposition identical to Article 60(1) of the former Higher Education Act to the Plaintiff corporation. As to the part excluded from a disposition against the Plaintiff president, namely, a heavy disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff president, a warning, a warning, a warning and a correction order, and a notification order for the president of the University of this case on the ground of the reasons for the disposition Nos. 2 and 8, a heavy disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff president on the ground of the reasons for the disposition Nos. 3 and 6, a warning measure against the Plaintiff president on the ground of the reasons for the disposition No. 7, and a warning and correction order to the president of the Plaintiff corporation on the ground of the above [Attachment] disposition No. 7, and a notification order and submission of the result thereof.

E. Based on the defendant's separate disposition counterpart, the plaintiffs corporation is seeking revocation of each of the dispositions stated in the list of claims in [Attachment 22) 1. A claim list and [Attachment 2] 2. A claim list in [Attachment 2] 3. (As the defendant's disposition is divided into the defendant's disposition counterpart, each disposition in the above [Attachment 2] list shall be specified and referred to as "each of the dispositions in this case" shall be referred to as "each of the dispositions in this case.

F. Each disposition of this case includes the order to recover the amount already paid on the ground that the university of this case executed disbursement in the accounts of private school institutions in violation of the financial and accounting rules of the private school institutions, and the disposition ordering the relevant school personnel to take disciplinary measures. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is the faculty members of the university of this case related to the pertinent disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 6, 47, 48 evidence, Eul's 5-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes, etc.

[Attachment 4] The entry is as follows.

3. Whether the part of the lawsuit of this case disputing the cancellation of "agency warning to the university of this case" is legitimate

A. The defendant's main defense

Among the measures indicated in the Disposition (Evidence A) of this case, each "agency Warning of the University of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "the Notification of this case") is merely a de facto notification given by the Defendant, as a supervisory authority, to urge the University of this case, as a result of the inspection of actual conditions of this case, that the Defendant, as a supervisory authority, should urge him/her to distinguish the facts pointed out as a result of the inspection of actual conditions, and to prevent the recurrence of the same and similar illegal or unjust matters in the future. The warning of this case does not result in any legal disadvantage without any burden of the subject or obligation to be corrected and cured by the receiving agency. Thus, the warning of this case does not constitute an

B. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The warning of this case is practically unfavorable in relation to the evaluation of the work of the university of this case in the future, so it should be deemed an administrative disposition that causes changes to the rights and duties of the plaintiffs. In relation to this awareness, the "Correction or Change" stipulated in Article 60 (1) of the former Higher Education Act cannot be deemed to include the warning of this case, and the Ministry of Education's Audit and Inspection Regulations are merely an internal work guidelines of the administrative agency, and thus, it cannot be the basis for administrative disposition. Accordingly, the warning of this case in this case must be revoked

C. Determination

1) Whether an administrative agency’s act can be a subject of an appeal cannot be determined abstractly. In specific cases, it shall be determined individually by taking into account the content and purport of the relevant statutes, the subject, form, and procedure of the act, the substantial relation between the act and the disadvantage suffered by interested parties, such as the other party, and the principle of administration by the rule of law, the attitude of the administrative agency or interested party related to the act, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2019Da264700, Jan. 16, 2020).

2) Article 4(3) of the Private School Act provides that an educational foundation, etc. which establishes and operates a private junior college or the pertinent school shall be subject to guidance and supervision by the defendant. Article 48 of the same Act provides that the competent agency may order an educational foundation or private school support organization to submit a report, inspect books and documents, and order other necessary measures. Under Articles 2 subparag. 4 and 5(1) of the former Higher Education Act, a junior college, etc. which conducts higher education shall be subject to the defendant's instruction and supervision, and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Public Audit Act provides that the head of a central administrative agency, a local government, or an audit organization under its jurisdiction and a person belonging to such organization shall investigate, inspect, analyze, and verify all the duties and activities of the institution and the institution subject to audit and inspection (the former part of Article 23(1) provides that the head of a central administrative agency, etc. shall notify the head of an audit and inspection agency of the result within 60 days after the self-audit is completed (the head of an audit and inspection agency shall be subject to take corrective measures, etc.).

3) In light of the language, purport, and structure of the aforementioned relevant statutes, the inspection of actual condition of the instant case is in the form of a public audit conducted by the Defendant, who is the competent agency, for the Plaintiff and the pertinent university, pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Private School Act, Article 5 of the former Higher Education Act, and Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Public Audit Act. The instant warning is one of the measures taken on the ground that it was pointed out that the Defendant was illegal or unreasonable in relation to the operation of the instant university as a result of inspection of actual condition, and the legal basis is one of the measures taken on the ground that the instant warning was pointed out as a result of inspection of actual condition that the instant

The Audit Regulations of the Ministry of Education are merely an instruction that provides for matters necessary for the Minister of Education to conduct an audit of duties under his/her jurisdiction, and there is no delegation of superior statutes with regard to the kinds of audit results, and the relevant part shall be interpreted as an administrative rules without external binding force. The language of Article 19 of the former Audit Regulations of the Ministry of Education also includes a disciplinary action or reprimand (Article 2) where "act falling under the grounds for disciplinary action or reprimand (Article 19)" or "act falling under the grounds for disciplinary action or reprimand (Article 2) is committed in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or the relevant regulations, but it does not fall short of such degree," and the acts subject to warning and caution (Article 4) are distinct. Accordingly, the instant warning is merely a measure taken on the ground that it falls under cases where the degree of such fact does not fall under the grounds for disciplinary action or reprimand, and it is not clear that the relevant laws and regulations of the Ministry of Education, including the former Act, the Private School Act, and the Higher Education Act, and it is not clear that the Plaintiff 1 and relevant school juristic person who were given a warning or disadvantage.

4) The circumstance that the warning of this case can be assessed against the plaintiff corporation or the plaintiff president, etc. when the university of this case undergoes the "business evaluation", etc. is merely an abstract trend of the plaintiffs. Even if there is a possibility of being assessed to the effect that the family affairs are improper, considering the fact that the warning of this case does not reach the grounds for disciplinary action or reprimand, but it is a requirement for "illegal or unjustifiable facts revealed as a result of audit", it shall be deemed that the facts pointed out in the inspection of actual conditions are merely a factual or indirect effect that is likely to be considered as a negative reason in relation to the business evaluation of university, rather than a legal effect directly arising from the warning of this case itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13687, Apr. 23, 2004). Accordingly, the circumstances asserted by the plaintiffs cannot be deemed as a legal disadvantage, and the grounds for granting the disposition are not grounds for granting the disposition.

D. Sub-committee

The warning of this case does not constitute an administrative disposition which is subject to appeal litigation. The defendant's main defense to this point is with merit, and all part of the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the warning of this case is unlawful (in judgment on the merits of this case, in the judgment of Ghana, in accordance with the sequence of the remaining part of the request for the measure except the warning of each case among the disposition written in the contents of disposition, 'the first disposition or 'the eight dispositions' of this case).

4. Determination of the merits: Whether each of the dispositions in this case is legitimate

A. First Disposition of this case

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

The grounds for the disposition in this part are erroneous facts, such as assuming that the basic military training, training training, and elementary level training, which can be recognized as a lawful on-the-job training, public determination, and military students as a major in-depth training, should be recognized as the date of absence, and determining the number of professors at their discretion by misunderstanding the applicable period of internal regulations, and thus, based on erroneous facts (specific arguments are viewed as specific items).

B) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

Of the instant disposition 1, the part of the claim for revocation of credits is that all students should have cancelled the credits already received, and accordingly, the number of students whose graduation is revoked. In light of the following: (a) among students subject to the revocation of credits and graduation, there are students employed or engaged in other academic activities on the premise that they have already completed and graduated; and (b) most of the reason for unjust credits granted is that some non-standing professors (a professor concurrent office, part-time lecturer, etc.) neglected the attendance management by failing to properly manage the credits or do so with separate materials outside the attendance book; and (c) there were no errors in the student’s course of study and the method of recognizing the academic management and attendance of the department, the reason for the disposition in this part is against the principle of proportionality and is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary power.

In addition, a heavy disciplinary measure against relevant professors on the ground of this part of the disposition is also taken in full view of the following: (a) the university of this case operated school affairs in good faith; (b) the university of this case recommended to faithfully take part in the school affairs schedule; (c) some of the faculty's unfaithful management was caused; (d) the university of this case uniformly demanded a heavy disciplinary measure; and (e) the university of this case includes a teacher who erroneously granted credits to one student on one subject; and (e) the degree of the disposition on similar misconduct compared to the disposition on other school juristic persons is too excessive; and (e) the university of this case’s demand for heavy disciplinary measure is also an unlawful act that

(ii) the existence of the reasons for the action

A) Whether to grant credits to the students under attendance (67)

(1) Summary of the reasons for the disposition

In violation of Article 59 of the school regulations and Article 3 of the School Regulations, professors V, W, X, Y, Z, AAB, AD, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AM, AO, AP, AP, AP, and Q, belonging to the university of this case, in violation of Article 59 of the school regulations and Article 3 of the School Regulations, and the instant disposition (Evidence A evidence 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) [1] attached to the year of 2015 and the year 2016, even though the number of students in charge of the course of the course of this case falls short of the minimum standards for attendance to complete credits by not less than 1/4 of the number of class hours and giving credits for the subject concerned, thereby improper management of school affairs (the total number of students in question is 67).

(2) Relevant provisions

Article 6 (School Regulations) (1) of the Higher Education Act (where a person establishes a school, referring to the person who intends to establish the school) may establish or amend school regulations (hereinafter referred to as "school regulations") within the scope of Acts and subordinate statutes.

The curriculum operated jointly with a foreign university shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. The completion of the curriculum shall be based on the grade and credit system, etc., and required completion hours per credit shall be determined by Presidential Decree. The competent administrative agency (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28900, May 28, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 4 (School Regulations) (School Regulations) (hereinafter referred to as "School Regulations") (hereinafter referred to as "School Regulations") under Article 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act shall state the following matters.

(2) The results of subjects shall be recognized as having earned credits when they reach at least DO.

(3) Criteria for determining whether to attend the meeting

(A) Article 21(1) and (2) of the former Higher Education Act provide that “A school shall operate curricula as prescribed by school regulations.” Article 6 of the same Act and Article 4(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that matters concerning “the operation of curricula, the completion unit of courses, and the management of school records” shall be included in school regulations. Article 21(3) of the former Higher Education Act and Article 14(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that “The necessary completion hours per credit shall be determined by school for 15 hours per semester by taking into account the characteristics of the curriculum, and the matters necessary to recognize the completion hours per credit, such as the student’s attendance, shall be determined by school regulations. According to delegation, Articles 57 and 59 of the school regulations of the present university provide that “at least 1/4 of the total completion hours of each subject” shall be determined by school regulations to be “at least 60 days after completion of each class,” and “at least 60 days after completion of each class.”

(B) In granting academic achievements to private universities, the limitations stipulated in the Higher Education Act and the regulations of the university of this case according to the delegation by the Higher Education Act shall be observed, and this shall also apply to the evaluation of "an attendance, which serves as the premise for the completion of the academic achievement." Since the number of credits should be premised on "an attendance at a certain standard" and the prior meaning of the attendance is "an attendance at a certain place", in principle, it shall be recognized that the attendance was directly made on the school day in order to be recognized, and even if the faculty did not directly attend, it shall satisfy the grounds that exceptionally recognize such "an attendance at the school" as an exception in order to recognize the attendance with attendance on the ground of the approval of the faculty in charge.

(4) As to the attendance of the disposition / [1] Nos. 1 through 8 of the year recorded in the table (the second semester of 2015)

(A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

[1] No. 1 to 8 as indicated in the table was an issue of attendance at the 2015-year 2015-year 'technical guard theory and practice' subjects. The defendant identified the number of attendance at the meeting at the time of the inspection of the actual condition of the present case, but the above attendance at the meeting was erroneous in the misunderstanding of the attendance situation. The teacher in charge shall imprint the lecture room as a photograph to accurately confirm the attendance and to respond to the student's objection against the attendance at the meeting, and the teaching assistant in charge has arranged the attendance at the meeting based on his photograph. However, in the process of moving the lecture photo to the attendance at the meeting, V had the attendance at the meeting of the 2015-year 2015-200-200-1, not the attendance at the meeting but the attendance at the meeting of the 12-1-2015-200-1.

(B) Facts of recognition

① The details of the guidelines formulated by the University Education Committee on August 31, 2015 regarding the management, etc. of the attendance at the University, and the details of the guidelines regarding the recognition of attendance through the school website on April 14, 2016 are as follows.

The detailed guidelines sheet prepared by the school affairs committee on August 31, 2015, each four times of absence 20-2 x 20-2 x number of attendance points (Provided, That the attendance points shall be discarded) and the attendance points shall be indicated on the prescribed basis and the attendance points shall be given to the end of a semester, and where the details related to the recognition of attendance at the school affairs center on April 14, 2016 are unable to be present due to the following reasons, submission to the professor, accompanied by documentary evidence - where documentary evidence is submitted to the professor for public proceedings outside the school affairs, a cooperation sheet is prepared in the case of subjects or cultural subjects attached to the attendance book, and a document is attached to the attendance book.

On December 6, 2016, in the process of the inspection of actual condition of the university of this case, E and professor D signed and sealed a letter of confirmation that they conducted the sexual evaluation affairs, including the reason for the disposition in this part, and confirmed and signed the following facts in relation to the "integrative management of records" and "integrative management of attendance books" (hereinafter referred to as "one confirmation document of this case").

| 2016. 12. 6.자 이 사건 1 확인서0 기록물 관리 부적정문서의 보존 관련 규정이 존재하지 않고 있으며 이에 따라 업무과정에 기반을 둔 기록관리기준표에 따른 문서보존기간을 설정하지 않아 현재 관련 부서에서 규정 개정 절차진행 중임.0 출석부 관리 부실- 이 사건 대학교 사무관리규정 제14조(문서의 수정)에 따르면 문서의 일부분을 삭제 또는 수정한 때에는 원안의 글자를 알 수 있도록 당해 글자의 중앙에 가로로 두선을 그어삭제 또는 수정하고, 삭제 또한 수정한 자가 그곳에 서명 또는 날인하여야 한다고 규정되어 있음에도 불구하고, 2015학년도 1학기부터 현재까지 다수의 출석부에서 연필 또는 수정펜을 이용하여 수정처리 하였고 날인을 하지 않는 등 출석부 관리를 부적정하게관리한 사실이 있음.출석부 확인사항에 학사내규 제21조(출석부 작성 및 보관) 각 교과목 담당교수는 출석부에 출결상황을 매시간 기록하여야 하며, 수업일수 1/4 기간 이상을 결석한 학생의 성

Although it is written that the establishment of the integrated information system currently used does not recognize it, the introduction of the other university system as it is and the contents of other universities are stated.

In 32015, there are differences between the 1-1 attendance book of 2 semester 1-1, the 1-2 attendance book of 1-2, the 1-1 attendance book of 1-1, and the 1-1 attendance book of 1-2. The 1-2 attendance book of 1-1 attendance book is less than the 1-1 attendance book of 1-1. The 1-1 attendance book submitted by the 1-1 attendance book of 1-1. The attendance book of 1/4 of the relevant attendance book is the 1-1 attendance book of 1/4 of the total attendance book of 1/4 of the relevant curriculum.

(4) On December 20, 2016, V submitted a false statement of attendance at the time of dealing with student attendance at the letter of confirmation of December 20, 2016, and submitted a false statement of attendance at the meeting. However, the said letter of attendance at the meeting ledger contains a false statement of attendance at the meeting ledger. In recent years, upon becoming aware of this fact, it was requested to find the revised original statement of attendance at the school inspector’s school affairs department and to find the revised original statement of attendance, but not confirmed. The letter of attendance accompanied by the letter of confirmation (the 1-2 attendance book) stated that the person himself/herself is the material that he/she had a copy

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 12-1, 2, 13, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(C) Determination

In the case of an appeal litigation, the Defendant, who asserts the legality of the disposition, bears the burden of proving the legitimacy of the disposition. However, if there is a reasonable and acceptable proof of response as to the legality of a certain disposition asserted by the Defendant, the disposition is justifiable, and any allegations contrary thereto and proof return to the Plaintiff, the other party, who is the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du39156, Jun. 15, 2017). If an administrative agency received a written confirmation that the facts were found by the parties in the course of an administrative investigation, barring any special circumstance, such evidence of the confirmation cannot be readily denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du2928, May 22, 1998). In light of the aforementioned recognized facts and the following circumstances known by the Defendant, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the facts were found to be unlawful is insufficient to the extent that the evidence of the confirmation was written by force against the will of the originator or that it is difficult to use it as evidentiary materials for the specific facts.

① At the time of the inspection of actual condition, E and D signed a letter of confirmation recognizing the reasons for the disposition in this part at the time of the inspection of actual condition with the Plaintiff’s office E and D. Although the aforementioned confirmation was not a professor in charge of each subject, the attendance division is obligated to preserve the records pursuant to the Public Records Management Act (hereinafter “Public Records Management Act”). The professors in charge of each subject submitted the attendance book at the end of each semester, and preserve and manage the attendance book so submitted. The reason for the disposition in this part is based on the records in which the attendance office is preserved at the time of the inspection of actual condition, based on the number of attendance recorded in the attendance book, the number of attendance at the attendance at the attendance at the attendance at the time of the inspection of actual condition, whether the attendance falls short of the minimum attendance standard, and the above confirmation person was a public official in charge of school affairs who appears to know about the preservation and management of the attendance book, and thus, the credibility of the content of the confirmation can be acknowledged. There are no circumstances or circumstances to suspect credibility, such as the instant certificate was prepared by force or specific facts.

② Under the school regulations of the instant university, attendance at the university of this case is the minimum standard for granting credits, and reflect the attendance status at the time of sexual evaluation. The professor in charge of subjects shall evaluate the results of the subject and determine whether to grant credits, taking into account school regulations, and may expect the duty to manage the attendance status and to prepare and submit attendance records according to the standards prescribed in the detailed guidelines of the school affairs committee on August 31, 2015, and the detailed contents related to the recognition of attendance on April 14, 2016. Furthermore, considering that the professors in charge submitted attendance records to the school affairs office by the end of the semester, it is reasonable to view that the normal attendance of the subject was submitted to the school affairs office at the end of the second semester of the year, and at the latest, managed and preserved at the school affairs office from February 2016.

③ However, at the time of the inspection of actual condition, the attendance book kept in the school office was only the 1-1 attendance book, and the 1-2 attendance book was not submitted. Although the 1-2 attendance book was submitted again, the 1-2 attendance book was entered in the attendance book, the 1-1 attendance book was merely the fact that there was no 1-2 attendance book in the school office until the time of the inspection of actual condition of the case. The 1-2 attendance book was different from the 1-1 attendance book and the 1-1 attendance book, the 1-2 attendance book was kept in the school office according to the guidelines. However, it is difficult to accept the assertion regarding the process of preparation, time of preparation, preservation, etc. of the 1-1 attendance book by the time of the inspection of actual condition of the present case.

The above facts alone are insufficient to recognize a special circumstance that could exclude the contents written in the instant certificate 1, and there is no other counter-proof.

(5) Regarding the attendance of 10 parts of the year No. 2015, No. 2015, No. 2015, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010

(A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

[Attachment 1] The 10th anniversary of the year 2015, the attendance of a student R, who participated in the subject of the "Libyter system operation" at the 2nd 2015, was at issue. The relevant part of the attendance at the meeting is indicated as having been absent for three hours on September 14, 2015; November 23, 2015; and December 7, 2015, respectively. However, on November 16, 2015, AR participated in the on-the-job training of AS corporation, which entered into the Mapo Information Protection and Family Business Agreement with AS company, and submitted a certificate of practice. Since the teacher in charge did not reflect the request for on-the-job training in accordance with Article 26 (1) of the University Regulations and the Information Protection with the Department affiliated with AR, he/she did not accept the request for on-the-job training as the first day of attendance at the meeting.

(B) Facts of recognition

① In the year 2015, the subject of the “Liter system operation” was 15 parking (3 hours each, respectively) for two semesters. In the second part, AR, which is the attendance of the above subject, was indicated as the total number of absences for 12 hours (4 hours each, every three hours) including the absence from office on November 16, 2015.

② AS Co., Ltd. (AS) is located in the TPPU in the YU in the YU of the Jeonju City, and is a company that entered into an agreement with the pertinent university on information security and family business. AS sent an official door to the title “request for the support of students related to the installation and operation ofCCTV” to the Maren Information Protection Department around November 2015, and on November 16, 2015, it was notified that the term “control technology, control technology, the technology for real-time analysis and processing of video images, the education on automatic vehicle number recognition technology, etc.” in relation to the installation of CCTV in the morning, and requested the support of students interested in the department (hereinafter referred to as “the instant practice”).

③ AR was a student of the instant university in the course of providing information security and education, and supported the instant university’s participation in the practice. The Man Information Protection Department and the chief of the department determined that the instant practice was a student’s field-based field-based project during a semester related to the enhancement of students’ major working ability, and requested AR to attend a replacement for the instant practice on November 4, 2015, by sending a task force to the professor in charge, who is a subject the AR’s course of study, and who is called a “LLber system operation” and a “seaing Security Practice.” In the case of the subject of the “Sriri General Information Management Department Operation”, the professor X received and signed the aforementioned task force on the same day.

(4) On November 1, 2015, 16, the R participated in the instant practice and participated in the training from AS for a total of eight hours in relation to the installation and operation of security CCTV.

⑤ On December 13, 2016, the professor X- in charge of the above subjects participated in the practical training of this case and received cooperation from the department, and prepared a written confirmation that “AR students were present during the practical training of this case but were recognized as attendance.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 14-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

(C) Determination

Article 12 of the Framework Act on Education shall respect and protect basic human rights of learners, including students, in the course of school education, and educational curricula, educational methods, teaching materials, and educational facilities shall be provided to ensure that learners can show their abilities to the maximum extent by respecting the personality of learners and emphasizing their personality.

In addition, Article 22(1) of the Higher Education Act provides that school classes may be conducted by field training classes, as prescribed by school regulations. Based on delegation, Article 56(1) of the University Regulations provides that “If a student fails to attend due to a draft physical examination, reserve forces education, education, appeal, social service activities, or any other reason, evidence documents may be verified and recognized by attendance.”

On November 16, 2015, AR did not participate in the class of "Libyter system operation" subject, and the relevant part of the meeting is marked as "AR". However, on the same day, AR was involved in the practice of this case on the same day, AR was judged to be related to the development of students' practical ability, and the head of Sene Information Protection and Department requested the professors of relevant subjects to be present in advance for the recognition of substitute attendance for the reason of the student's participation in the practice of this case, and there was a fact that he approved substitute attendance prior to the cooperation of X as the professor in charge. The second part of the part of the attendance was approved of substitute attendance, and it seems that the part of the second part of the attendance was merely stated as "the absence of attendance".

Article 56 of the school regulations of this case states "other circumstances" as one of the requirements for substitute attendance. Thus, the professor in charge can evaluate the "other circumstances according to discretion within the scope consistent with the purpose of the Framework Act on Education and the Higher Education" and recognize the student's substitute attendance. The participation in practical training can expect the performance corresponding to the improvement of abilities that can be obtained by attending the class hours in terms of field experience accumulation, and it can be expected that the contents of the practical training in this case, the relationship with the subjects of the "Libyter system" in the field of the training in this case, and there have been regular procedures through prior cooperation. Considering that the professor in charge has recognized the participation in the practical training in this case as substitute for his class in response to the cooperation between the Man Information Protection and the head of the department, it seems that Article 56 of the school regulations is within the discretionary scope that can be evaluated as the "other circumstances" that can be evaluated as the "other circumstances" among the requirements for the recognition of attendance. It constitutes evidence that the AR's participation in the attendance under Article 56 of school regulations.

Therefore, AR’s attendance on November 16, 2015 should be recognized. In that case, the number of days of absence of AR does not exceed 1/4 of the total number of hours of study (45 hours). Therefore, the Defendant’s ground for disposition on a different premise is unlawful. The Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is with merit.

(6) As to the attendance of the person in charge of disposition [1] No. 19 to twenty-seven (the second semester of year in 2015 and the second half of year in 2015), the attendance of the person.

(A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

[Attachment 1] Nos. 19 through 27 of a year was at issue as to whether a person was present at the police guard, and a person who was present at the same time. The defendant issued a corrective order based on the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the '3-1' and 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the '4-1' of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ''')' of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 's 'the 'the 's 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the '')' of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the '

(B) Facts of recognition

(1) Article 21 of the School Regulations applicable to the year 2016 provides that “The professor in charge of each subject shall enter the attendance conditions per hour in the attendance book and shall not recognize the results of the student who was absent from school for a period of more than 1/4 of the number of school days,” and the period for submitting the attendance book was within seven days after the completion of the sexual correction.

② With respect to the subjects of 3-1, 3-2, 4-1, and 4-2, the attendance at the 3-2, 3-2, the attendance at the 4-2, which are different from the student attendance at the 1 semester, are written differently. According to the 3-2, 4-2, the number of absences at the 3-1, the 3-1, and the 4-1, the 4-2, which were examined at the time of the inspection of the actual conditions of the instant case, the attendance at the 4-1, the 1st 19 through 27, which are indicated as the 3-4th 4th th th th son of the 19 to 27th son’s attendance at the 2017, the 3-1, 2017, and the 3-1, the 3-B, the 3-1, 2016-A, after the attendance at the 2017.

④ The post registration and parcel receipt book of the University include the sender’s “AC”, the addressee’s “School Admission Office”, and the date of receipt on July 6, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 15, 76 evidence 12, 77-12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(C) Determination

In light of the following circumstances that can be comprehensively acknowledged by taking account of the facts acknowledged as above and the purport of the entire arguments, the following facts are lawful: (a) this part of the disposition that the students listed in the table No. 19 through 27 fall short of the standards for attendance at the meeting at the meeting at the time of the inspection of the actual status of the instant case, including the grounds for disposition under this part of this case; and (b) the Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is without merit.

① The university of this case was in a state that there was no provision regarding the preservation of documents in accordance with Article 19 of the Public Records Management Act in the year 2015 and year 2016 around one semester, and was pointed out that the attendance book was inappropriate due to the absence of any provision regarding the preservation of documents, such as making changes or making a proper seal using a revised pen or an amended pen.

(2) It is insufficient to view that only the AC’s written confirmation, postal registration, and parcel-receiving records alone, the 2016th century’s 1 semester’s 201 and 2nd 2nd 1st 201. In particular, it is difficult to view that the 3-1 attendance book, 4-1 attendance book, and 4-2 attendance book submitted and preserved the 3-2nd 3-2 attendance book, the second 2nd 3-2 attendance book, and the 4-2 attendance book, when conducting the administrative investigation at the time of the inspection of the present situation, were submitted only to the 3-1 attendance book, 4-1 attendance book, and were preserved for the 4-2 attendance book.

③ In the case of the 3-2 attendance book claiming the true attendance book, the 3-1 attendance book claiming that the number of absence days was 1/4 or more of the total number of attendance days, and the 4-1 attendance book, different from the 3-1 attendance book claiming that the number of absence days was 1/4 or more of the total number of attendance days, are different, and the 3-1 attendance book is different from the 4-1 attendance book, and the 4-1 attendance book is related to whether the 3-1 attendance book is 'un acquired (F or N)' in relation to the minimum attendance standard, so it seems that there was a significant problem. Accordingly, if the 3-2 attendance book claiming that the 4-2 attendance book submitted a new attendance book resulting from the change (or the 3-1, 4-1 attendance book) of the previous attendance book causing confusion, it is difficult to understand that the 3-1 attendance book was managed and preserved in the school entry office, and there is no explanation to this.

④ There are no other circumstances to support the credibility of the entries in the attendance book and the attendance book in Article 3-2. It is insufficient to recognize any special circumstances to reject the entries in the instant one confirmation document.

(7) As to the attendance of the disposition / [1] No. 36 of the annual statement (the first semester of 2015) (the first semester of 2015).

(A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

[1] On June 10, 2015, in the case of 36 annual 36, the issue was that BD's 'health management science I' subjects in the Social Welfare Department was the issue. However, on June 10, 2015, the Ministry of Education recommended that the Middle East ZE (hereinafter referred to as the "Megos") prevail nationwide, and that the Ministry of Education should seek response measures for each school to prevent Messen and prevent the spread of Messen. As part of this, the university of this case established measures to cope with the recommendations of the Ministry of Education and prevent the spread of Messen, and as part of this, it prevents additional contact by having the students who were from the area where the Messens disease occurred or from the area where the Messensia occurred, Kim Jong-E, the area where the Messensia occurred, at the time of the university of this case, the university of this case was in violation of B's recommendation to suspend the Messen and so on.

(B) Facts of recognition

① On May 20, 2015, the first metr patient occurred in the Republic of Korea, and thereafter the patient began to spread, centering on medical institutions. They distributed ‘university Morse School Response Manual' to the schools under Article 2 of the former Higher Education Act and similar institutions.

② According to the above manual, the disease control steps around June 5, 2015 are directed to take measures to cope with the level of ‘security' during the fourth step classified into ‘public trial, caution, boundary, and serious', or ‘security level' to prevent the occurrence of mers in the school, ‘measures to cope with the level of ‘security' shall be strengthened response and prevented, as necessary, suspension of business and prevention of spread, collective activity, and ‘security', schools shall actively review the current suspension of business more actively, and take measures to prohibit the movement of the participating group activities into the area where the main patient is positive. According to the above manual, until the patient completely recovers, until it is confirmed that the suspected patient is not the patient, until the student is identified in the notice of isolation, and until it is confirmed that the student is not the patient, the student who is closely contacted shall be considered to have the effect of early suspension of business or operation due to suspension of business by the deadline determined by school regulations, etc., and the effect of early suspension of business or operation by the deadline determined by school regulations, etc.

③ Based on the above manual on June 10, 2015, the University Admission Office established a school affairs management plan as follows (hereinafter referred to as the “instant guidelines”), and as to BD, which is the motive of the department such as BE and BE, whose domicile is the whole-in place, the Ministry of Education ordered the suspension of school attendance on June 10, 2015, and dealt with it as a public decision.

2. With respect to the mid-dong Smoking Refection Group, this school did not have been notified by the health authorities to be currently infected or isolated, but this school shall be allowed to provide guidance to students in the area where the disease from the disease prevention center and the students visiting the area in which the disease from the disease prevention center have occurred and to prevent them from attending the area after public consultation. (A) The purpose is to conduct public consultation or to prevent students visiting the area where the disease from occurring and visiting the area: 1. The target is to prevent students from spreading inside the school. (1) The target is the area where the disease from the disease is discovered (e.g., the wind and Kim system), and the area where the disease from the disease from the disease is discovered (e.g., the students in the region where the disease from the disease is discovered) and the disease from the disease prevention center (e.g., the students in the region where the disease from the disease is discovered).

(f)other: the Medice immediately, when the Medice is sent to a petition, end;

④ Meanwhile, the university of this case, based on Article 56(2) of the school regulations, established guidelines on the recognition of the attendance, and implemented the guidelines from November 30, 2016 through paragraph (1) of the Addenda.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 16-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

(C) Determination

Article 56 (2) of the University Regulations provides that "the details of the recognition of attendance shall be determined separately by the president," and the Minister of Education and the Ministry of Health and Welfare has not yet formulated detailed guidelines until November 30, 2016. According to the manuals of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, measures to preemptive and preventive measures are to prohibit student participation group activities from moving to a student participation group area, and the subject of suspension of attendance is 'Memers confirmed patients, suspected patients, and persons closely contact with the subject of suspension of attendance. The subject of the instant guidelines on the measures were determined as 'Memers confirmed patients', students who visited the area, and students who visited the area or conducted on-the-spot training.

However, BD is a “friendly Gu of BE, where the address is Kim (area where the domains have occurred)” and does not fall under those subject to the foregoing manual and the instant guidelines. In light of the fact that there was no person notified by the Health Authority as a metresy patient with respect to the University of this case or a person who is confirmed as closely related to the University of this case as a person subject to isolation at around June 10, 2015, BD cannot be recognized as a person subject to isolation. Therefore, BD does not fall under the subject of public resolution under the above manual and the instant guidelines, and does not meet the requirements to be deemed as subject to public resolution, and thus, it cannot be recognized as a substitute attendance under Article 56 of the school regulations because the public resolution on June 10, 2015 violated the relevant regulations. This part of the grounds for disposition is recognized to the effect that this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

(8) Regarding the attendance of the disposal statement [1] Nos. 37 through 39 of the year (the year 2015 includes 1 'PF financial assets investment 1' and 'PF financial assets investment 2' subjects) recorded in the Schedule.

(A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

[Attachment 1] In the case of Nos. 37 through 39, the problem was the student BF or BG taking the subjects of 'PF financial assets investment I', 'PF financial assets investment I'. Among them, BF was pointed out that it falls short of attendance at 7 or 7, or 8 school attendance on April 1, 2015, 2015, 1.

Therefore, BF’s recognition on April 1, 2015, April 29, 2015, and May 20, 2015 should be recognized with attendance.

In the case of 'PF financial assets investment I' subject, the teacher in charge confirmed his/her withdrawal based on whether he/she responded to the attendance at the beginning of classes. BF and BG have called 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's' since 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's' has not been properly entered in the 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ''. BG 's 's 's 's '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '

(B) Facts of recognition

① On December 28, 2016, PF 1 subject of financial investment, AG confirmed that the relevant subject was present at the 7th curriculum beginning for a series of classes between 7 and 8, and that there were many cases where the student was absent from 7 educational cities and was omitted in the case of a student who was dismissed in 8 educational programs. BF students were present at several times after the commencement of 8 educational programs, but there were some parts not reflected in the attendance.

② On January 12, 2017, AH expressed 2 hours of PF’s attendance at the meeting on January 12, 2017. In particular, BG on April 10, BG, BF on March 6 and April 24, 201, the first-time attendance at the meeting was not changed promptly after giving lessons to the attendance at the meeting. BG and BF on March 24, 201. The first-time attendance at the meeting was changed to 6 (24, total 30) and submitted a written confirmation.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 17-1, 2, Gap evidence 18-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

(C) Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs' assertion and evidence No. 17-2, No. 18-2, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each of the statements and the whole purport of arguments as stated in No. 17-1 and No. 18-1 of the evidence No. 17-2, it is not sufficient to recognize that the student was present or dismissed, unlike the statement of the certificate No. 17-2, and that the student was absent from office. The grounds for disposition in this part are recognized and the plaintiffs' assertion is groundless.

① In the year of 2015, there are students indicated as “satiscoon at the 7th school level” in the attendance of each subject of PF financial asset investment for one semester, and in the case of BF, it is indicated as “satiscoon at the 8th school level.” Unlike other students, in the case of BF, it is indicated as “satiscoon at the 7th school level” or “satiscoon at the 7th school level,” or in the case of the 7th school level, there is no reason to regard that the attendance was indicated as “7,8 school class attendance”

② In 2015, the 2015-year PF financial assets investment 2 subjects were conducted at 10:00 p.m. a school day, and the 11-day school hours were not indicated in the attendance book of the pertinent subject (in case of the 2-day school curriculum, each 1-hour school hour is indicated) but the 1-time school attendance mark is recognized (in case of the 2-day school curriculum, each 1-time school attendance mark). However, in light of the above school regulations of the pertinent university, and the fact that the 2-time school instruction was given to the teachers to verify and submit the attendance book within 7 (7) days of each school year, it is reasonable to deem that the 2-time school attendance statement was written based on the results of identifying the attendance book at the time. Moreover, since the 2-time school teacher can not be treated as absence for a certain period of time within his discretion, the 2-time school teacher stated that it is not the 1-time school attendance, not the 2-time school attendance.

(3) After the inspection of actual condition, it appears that a teacher in charge was prepared under the state that the number of students in the relevant subject was affected by the graduation of the BF and BG students after the inspection of actual condition of the instant case, and that it is difficult for some students to understand whether some students were absent from school on the specified date or not, and there are no other objective circumstances to support their credibility.

(9) The relation to the attendance of the disposition / [1] Nos. 45 and 46 (the year 2015 / 1 semester / 2015 / 1 semester / 2015).

(A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

[Attachment 1] No. 45, 46 was an issue of attendance of BH and BI who attended the subjects of “Annuriology”. The defendant was presumed to be absent on the ground that the attendance book (hereinafter “five attendance book”) only stated the six hours of BH and BI jointly with the attendance book (hereinafter “five attendance book”) and there is no evidentiary document. However, the professor AJ is a medical specialist with the relevant infant, and the professor AJ was conducted a medical examination and treatment after confirming the disease condition, so it constitutes a legitimate replacement for attendance.

(B) Facts of recognition

① The number of years in 2015 includes: (a) three times in total; (b) two hours in total; (c) two hours in total; and (d) two hours in total.

2) The AJJ is a medical specialist with a child and a medical specialist. AJ prepared a written confirmation that “The AJ is a professor in charge of the AJ on December 16, 2016 and confirmed as a medical certificate or a written confirmation of medical examination and treatment, so that it applies the subsequent contents to the relevant student on the ground that there is no relevant document (e.g., cancellation of credits). The records of medical records include the contents that can be sensitive and exposed to others, and submission of the records to schools as evidentiary materials is detrimental to the student’s privacy and human rights. The relevant professor also has a moral duty to confirm and guarantee them. No person in charge shall compel the submission of a medical certificate or medical certificate, and respect that the professor in charge is determined as a confirmation by the competent professor.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 19-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

(C) Determination

Article 56 (1) of the University Regulations provides that "If a student fails to attend due to a draft physical examination, reserve education, education, appeal, social service activities and other circumstances, it may be confirmed and recognized with attendance." Thus, in order to recognize a substitute attendance on the grounds of a student's disease, the relevant disease must fall under "other circumstances," and relevant documentary evidence should have been confirmed.

In light of the purport of the Framework Act on Education that recognizes a student’s right to receive education according to his/her abilities and aptitudes, it is reasonable to recognize a substitute attendance by recognizing a student suffering from a disease as a “other circumstances even if he/she fails to attend a class according to a specific case.” However, it is also necessary to manage the appropriate school affairs of the junior college that conducts higher education, and the regulations of the university of this case stipulate that the student of this case must verify evidence of a substitute attendance, even if he/she actually does not attend a class. The need for appropriate management of attendance, equality with the students who faithfully attend a class, the duty of professors to provide credits objectively and fairly, the doctor’s duty to verify the student’s personal information or sensitive information by confirming and submitting a certificate of diagnosis or confirmation that the student can be protected at the discretion of the professor in charge, etc. should be determined based on the “other circumstances of the medical person’s attendance’s discretion”.

In light of the description of the attendance at the relevant subject, there is no material to see that the evidentiary documents have been submitted or confirmed in relation to the examination and treatment in question, and the above fact that the faculty's written confirmation or the professor is a medical specialist with the infant cannot be deemed to have been confirmed as stipulated in Article 56 (1) of the school regulations, so the requirement for recognition of attendance cannot be deemed to have been met (in the relevant teacher's written confirmation, it is a matter confirmed as a medical certificate or a medical confirmation certificate). However, in light of the fact that the said written confirmation cannot be forced to submit a medical certificate, etc. under the above written confirmation, the fact that the presentation of a medical certificate, etc. can not be delayed, and the fact that whether the substitute attendance is recognized is impossible to be accompanied by the medical certificate, etc., at the time, the submission of the documents, such as the medical certificate, the written confirmation, etc., violates Article 56 (1) of the school regulations. Therefore, this part of the defendant's grounds for disposition

(10) Disposition Statement [1] Part 60, No. 60, No. 2015, No. 2015, No. 2015, No. 2016

Attendance-Related

(A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

[Attachment 1] In the case of No. 60 per annum, BJ students who participated in the subjects of ‘military sports' were at issue.

The Defendant pointed out that there was no documentary evidence in the process of public order on November 24, 2015 and December 1, 2015, but the BJ student is entitled to substitute attendance pursuant to Article 26 of the University Regulations in the process of internship and on-the-job training on the above date.

(B) Facts of recognition

(1) According to the attendance book of the pertinent subject, the teacher in charge was treated as a public position on the ground of “employment” in relation to the attendance on November 24, 2015 and December 1, 2015 by the second grade BJ. The number of classes in the military sports subjects was 30 hours for 4 hours for 20 hours and 4 hours for 4 hours as above.

BJ participated in the internship and on-the-job training conducted by the BL located in BK from November 23, 2015, 2011 to February 29, 2016, and acquired the eligibility as the health insurance policyholder in the workplace on November 23, 2015, and BM was performing administrative affairs and on-the-job training.

(3) The professor in charge has been employed early by the relevant student at an institution where four major insurance is recognized, confirmed his/her employment certificate and four major insurance certificates, and confirmed his/her attendance at the institution on the date of the class, and recognized his/her attendance. In consideration of the intent and position of the student to be employed, applying Article 56(1) of the school regulations to conduct public consultation for 4 hours during the class hours and to conduct reasonable public consultation in the situations of early professors.

④ On June 20, 2017, BJ, who is a relevant student, was admitted to the pertinent university, to be a medical noncommissioned Officer, but performed a surgery in the second half of the year, and became a military personnel’s elbs. They found a path to be employed after an internship. They sought provisions related to school regulations and confirmed their attendance, and confirmed their employment. From November 23, 2015, the professor became an intern, and the professor had also confirmed his/her duty to work in BL, and submitted his/her certificate of employment and four major insurance policy.

He graduated from the college and entered the course of cyber credits administered by the National Institute for Lifelong Education. He submitted a written opinion to the effect that the credits for both subjects are revoked.

(5) The BJ shall apply for the examination at the end of a semester for military sports and received the results of BO.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 20 evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

(C) Determination

BJ established a public decision against BJ on November 23, 2015 on the ground that it was found that BLton was located in the broad name city, and that the pertinent teacher was employed after being an intern and was employed early in a workplace equipped with a system such as recognition of four major insurance. However, as seen earlier, the purport of the Framework Act on Education and Higher Education is as follows: (a) the school regulations of the pertinent university are embodying the required completion time for each credit, the completion unit of the curriculum, and the contents of the recognition of attendance pursuant to Articles 4(1)5 and 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act following the delegation of the Act and Articles 6 and 21(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; and (b) the discretion to recognize substitute attendance should also be restricted to comply with the limits derived from the interpretation of superior laws and regulations.

Article 56 of the University Regulations does not recognize "employment" as a requirement for recognition of attendance. In full view of the following circumstances as to whether an intern or an employee constitutes "other matters stipulated in Article 56 (1) of the Regulations," the credits of the subject of "military sports" should be granted in terms of recognition of his academic achievement when he passes the standards for achievement of the objective in question in principle; ② It is insufficient to recognize the relevance between the subject of "military sports" and the intern employees of BL to practice their duties, administrative affairs, etc.; and it is insufficient to deem that the study expected to be achieved by attending the military sports class hours through employment is insufficient. Even if an employee was employed in BL, such circumstance can not be a requirement for recognition of substitution of the subject of "military sports".

Therefore, it is recognized that the 4-hour public settlement of BJ violates Article 56 of the school regulations, so this part of the grounds for the disposition is without merit.

B) Whether to grant undue credits upon false entries in the presence (four persons)

(1) Summary of the reasons for the disposition

The professor BN, BO, BP, Q, BR, BS, BT, and BU affiliated with the pertinent university did not have any attendance of the students attending the course of the subject in charge as stated in the disposition of disposition [2], and granted the credits unfairly by entering the attendance book (four students in total).

(2) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The defendant concluded that four students in question were absent as a matter of course only from the fact that they were on-the-job training at the long distance. However, among the above 4 persons, BV appeared on every Tuesday, and BW was present at each Tuesday 6th Tuesday. To be present at that time, Seoul confirmed the same contents as the purchase records of the bus table, the professor in charge, and the statement of the officer in charge of the field training. In addition, the "basic field practice" in relation to BW was operated in the form of intensive class due to the characteristics of the on-site practice and was conducted 6 hours on November 17, 2014 and 4 hours on November 18, 2014, and 5 hours on the preparation and preparation hours on each TW was conducted in accordance with the centralized operation plan, and the professor in charge of BV was also found to be unlawful.

(3) Facts of recognition

① On April 5, 2017, the president attached to the university of this case and the president BX and the principal of school affairs E prepared a confirmation letter stating that “The attendance of the 13 subjects, including the 2014 Amer New Management theory, did not have any attendance at the meeting, and the credits have been granted unfairly by entering the attendance book” (hereinafter “instant 2 confirmation letter”).

In 2014, BT, a teacher in charge of the understanding of traditional culture, called ‘I' of the second semester, contacted on June 12, 2017, that ‘BV students are unlikely to attend three weeks of absence, so that the students could not be awarded their academic results.'

BU, one of the teachers in charge of modern lighting in the second semester of 2014, found BW before the beginning of the semester on June 15, 2017, and asked for attendance at the class that he/she should take practical training in Seoul, from September 1, 2014 to December 5, 2014. He/she said that he/she should take academic training in his/her school after receiving understanding from a practice institution. BW drafted a written confirmation that he/she was present except in two absences, and in one case, he/she was present.

④ From September 1, 2014, BW worked in BY located in Seoul. BZ, which was an appointed employee of the said Lestop, was prepared a written confirmation that “BW worked in Estop from September 1, 2014 to December 5, 2014, when W practices in Estop, from September 1, 2014, to December 5, 2014, it is confirmed that the sex’s modern lighting and the credits for one subject other than the sex’s Chinese number of credits.”

⑤ Although BW was absent on two occasions from the ‘Modern lighting' class, the rest of CW argued that he/she did not take lessons on the previous week, and that he/she paid bus cards in cash or by credit card, and that in the case of “basic field practice,” on November 11, 2014; on November 14, 2014; on November 17, 2014; on November 18, 2014; and on November 18, 2014, B W settled bus invoices in cash and returned to the previous week. B submitted the details of B’s bus tickets to pay with credit card tickets.

(6) In 2014, the number of class hours in the “on-site practice” subject in the “on-site practice” subject was scheduled to be 15 hours (1 credits). The relevant subject was planned to be carried out in the form of planning to engage in experiential activities in a sports center or lecture room in each department on November 17, 2014 and November 18, 2014 (1) and regarding the operation of exhibition and public relations team. Five hours were planned to be comprised of preparation hours for each department, 6 hours in November 17, 2014, and 4 hours in the form of preparing and operating part, etc. for four hours on November 18, 2014.

(2) On June 15, 2017, a professor in charge of the 'Basic Field Practice' was prepared with a confirmation that the BP was present at the basic field practice.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 21, 22-1 through 4, 74, 75, Eul evidence No. 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

(4) Determination

In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleading in the above facts, the BV and B in this part of the grounds for disposition cannot be deemed to have been proven to the reasonable extent. Therefore, it cannot be recognized as a legitimate ground for disposition.

This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is justified.

① The facts stated in the instant 2 confirmation form were examined as above. However, since the 12 subjects received credits by falsely stating the attendance of students as if the attendance took place even though the 12 subjects did not attend her class, the Defendant who asserts the legality of the disposition should prove that the attendance was entered falsely. However, the author of the instant 2 confirmation form is the head of the school affairs division and the head of the president’s attached office, and the head of the school affairs division only managed and preserved the attendance book prepared and submitted by the professor in charge upon the completion of each semester. As such, the professor in charge of the pertinent subject can confirm whether the attendance details are accurately stated or falsely stated in the attendance. In light of the facts and guidelines related to the preparation and management of the attendance book, it is difficult to view that there was a difference between the entries in the pertinent 2 confirmation form and the attendance book’s attached office’s attached office’s attached office’s attached office’s attached office’s attached office’s attached office’s attached office’s attached office’s attached office’s attached office’s attached office.

This part of the reasons for the disposition is based on the evaluation that "If a student's practice place is located far from the front week, which is the seat of the university of this case, he would not have been able to attend a class if he would normally participate in the practice." However, in the case of BV, the professor in charge recommended that BV should be understood and present at the practice place on the ground that BV would not meet the minimum number of hours of attendance, and later, BV decided to work only at the coffee shop and was actually present at the coffee, and therefore, it is argued that the attendance was indicated as the situation of attendance. As such, as long as it is difficult to deem that the false statement in the letter of confirmation of the case 2 is difficult to deem that the reason for the disposition is proven, the defendant is still responsible to prove the reason for the disposition, and there is no assertion and proof about BV's working condition, adjustment of duty to provide a stop, etc., and it cannot be concluded that the distance between the university of this case and the city of Seoul cannot be determined to be adjusted by 111:0:0:0.

(3) In the case of BW, there are circumstances supporting the assertion, such as: (a) the understanding of the training center is sought; and (b) the presentation of the pre-sale was made by using express buses; (c) the confirmation letter of each professor in charge; (d) the statement of the appointed staff working at the training center; and (e) the modern understanding of the nature of the subjects, there exist the credit card slips in which BW settled the express bus tickets on the same day as the class day. There are circumstances that seem consistent with the Plaintiffs’ assertion; and (c) in light of the circumstances supporting some objective evidence, it is difficult to readily conclude that BW did not attend the relevant class, and thus, the reason for the disposition is reasonably proven.

C) Whether the military career experience was recognized retroactively as a major in-depth training course (five persons)

(1) Summary of the reasons for the disposition

The university of this case, on March 28, 2016, did not submit a written confirmation of whether a Korean noncommissioned Officer and a CA student graduated from the Gun and was capable of training to the CK center. However, on July 4, 2016, the term of sexual admission and the correction period passed through the Department Self-Governing Council, the university of this case determined 16 credits retroactively as the 16th class field training course as the 16th class field training course for the military for five students enrolled in the Gun without prior confirmation as to the possibility of practice, as shown in the [Attachment 3] of the letter of disposition, such as recognizing 16 credits retroactively to the first semester of 2016.

(2) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

In order to cultivate the necessary knowledge and qualities of noncommissioned Officers and noncommissioned Officers in the Army. The Army passes the selection examination, even after passing the selection examination, provides the basic military training for 5 weeks, the training for 21 week, and the early class training for 20 week, and return to the school without passing the final examination if they fall short of the above education. Therefore, the training course for the Army Noncommissioned Officers can be seen as a typical noncommissioned Officers and the major in-depth training for the major in-depth noncommissioned Officers. In fact, students who receive the training for the major in-depth training are applying for the training for the major in-depth training: Provided, That students who receive the training for the second semester, unlike students who receive the training for the teacher in the first semester, the date of announcing the selection schedule for the Army cannot be known prior to the beginning of the new semester, and thus, students cannot submit the written application after the completion of the training course, and there was no problem that the students could not submit the written application after the completion of the training course.

The reason why the school regulations require the submission of an on-the-job training application for a major in-depth training to confirm whether the major in-depth and cultural subjects have been completed without a problem for graduation, and whether the head of the department and the head of the specialized in-depth training consulted in advance, etc. is to protect students by preventing any disadvantage that the students do not meet the requirements for graduation, etc. due to on-the-job training.In the case of minor procedural violations that have not been submitted first, it is possible to supplement ex post facto, and the relevant students submitted an on-the-job training application after preparing an on-the-job training application in accordance with the decision-making of the department and submitted it to the agency.

(3) Relevant provisions

Article 48 (Curriculum) (3) The field training course of the medical department of field training is divided into major departments and is required to be divided into major departments.Article 50 (Completion of Credits) (1) 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 22 22 22 20 22 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201.3 3)

1. Definitions of terms: Practice on-the-job training refers to the first priority of a major-related field training conducted by an institution that is deemed appropriate for a major-oriented practice, and includes a course of practical training to cultivate the basic vocational ability (e.g., easy, personal relations, service spirit, etc.) capable of further improving the major-level vocational ability. 2. Formation and recognition of credits: Practice on-the-art training course in major-oriented science shall be organized and established during a semester or vacation as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

3.(1) If a student who has completed an on-the-job training course submits an on-the-job training course, a letter of recognition of the completion of on-the-job training, and an on-the-job training course, he/she shall be granted the credits of on-the-job training. The detailed standards for on-the-job training shall be determined separately by the president.(4) The application conditions 1) The conditions of on-the-job training may be applied for by the student who has completed at least a semester.(2) The student immediately before the graduation shall meet the graduates, including the recognized credits of on-the-job training, and shall be the student who has completed the cultural course necessary for graduation: Provided, That if the subject of on-the-job training can be a subject of on-the-job training during the training period,

(4) Facts of recognition

① The Army Chief of Staff publicly announced “one-time selection plan for noncommissioned officers in the Army” on November 25, 2015, and “1-time selection plan for noncommissioned officers in the Army” in 2016. According to the selection announcement, upon receipt of support documents by December 18, 2015, the second evaluation from February 1, 2016 to February 12, 2016, and the second evaluation from February 16, 2016 to March 4, 2016, after undergoing physical fitness and interview examinations, the final successful candidates were enlisted on March 18, 2016, and were finally trained from noncommissioned Officers on March 28, 2016 (training station 5ju noncommissioned officers + noncommissioned officers) and finally passed the education for noncommissioned officers.

The CA, CB,CC, special noncommissioned Officer, CD and CE, who are students, were determined to pass the training course for 89 days in total without submitting an application and confirmation of the major in-depth field training to the Center of the pertinent university, and entered the training course on March 28, 2016 and participated in the training course by June 24, 2016.

③ On June 24, 2016, the Board of Education at the Army, the Board of Education at the Army, the Board of Education at the Education Team, and the student instruction noncommissioned Officers, etc. prepared a letter of completion of on-the-job training stating that each of the above students has completed practical training

④ On April 5, 2017, AB and CF, the head of the instant university CK, did not submit a written confirmation as to the inspection of actual condition at the time of the instant inspection, and whether the graduation and the practice could be performed, but did not confirm the possibility of practice to five students, such as the CA, entered the Gun, without prior confirmation, and recognized 16 credits as retroactive to the major in-service field after the lapse of the period of sexual admission and the period of sexual correction through the meeting of the department itself.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 23 through 25 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of whole pleadings

(5) Determination

According to the school regulations of the university of this case, the number of credits is determined by the method of completing the course of study to be established prior to the commencement of each semester, and the period, standards, etc. for the field practice is to be determined separately by the president. Article 12 of the school regulations of this case provides that the school regulations of this case stipulate that the field training related to major shall be “on-the-job training”, and that the field training related to major shall be organized and established during a semester or vacation, and the credits recognized during the duration of practice shall be 10 to 20 credits. Article 12(4)3 of the School regulations provides that “A student who applies for the field training at major level shall be limited to a person who submits to the CK Center after receiving a written confirmation as to the possibility of graduation and practice from a guidance professor.”

The university of this case did not establish or compile training courses according to the 2016 Army Noncommissioned Officers Selection Plan at the time of the beginning of the 1 semester. Noncommissioned Officers and Noncommissioned Officers and five students belonging to the university of this case did not submit to the CK Center a confirmation letter as to whether it is possible to graduate and practice under Article 12(4)3 of the School Regulations. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the 2016th anniversary of the 201 semester was established as the subject of the 1st semester, and that the above students applied for the establishment and organization of the 1st semester. Since the 6th anniversary of the 201 semester, it cannot be deemed that the 1st semester was established as the 1st anniversary of the 1st semester, the 6th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 6th anniversary of the 1st semester, the 1st anniversary of the 6th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 6th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 2016th anniversary of the 2nd of the 1st semester.

Therefore, it is recognized that the university of this case held the above five students to attend the "on-the-job training" retroactively around July 2016, and that giving the credits of this subject retroactively to the above five students is subject to the application of Article 12 of the School Regulations, and it is recognized that there is a ground for revocation corresponding to the "the results obtained without filing an application for on-the-job training" under Article 62 subparagraph 1 of the School Regulations. Ultimately, since the above five students have grounds for revocation of credits, this part of the grounds for disposition is recognized, and the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

D) Whether credits have been granted without recognized source of attendance (five persons)

(1) Summary of the reasons for the disposition

In violation of Article 56 of the school regulations, the university of this case granted credits to all five students from the first semester of 2015 to the first semester of 2016 without any documentary evidence to recognize their attendance.

(2) Part 1 of the disposition [Attachment 4] No. 1 of the year (2015 also 2015 also 'the second semester' subjects)

(A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

[Attachment 4] Since November 23, 2015, as seen earlier, the instant 1 BJ student was in the state of verification by submitting a certificate of employment as an intern and on-the-job training in BM. However, the pertinent professor L was in the period for submission of a semester at the end of the semester, and was in the state of verification of evidentiary materials by submitting the certificate of employment. However, the relevant professor L was wrong on November 11, 2015; November 11, 2015; and November 18, 2015. B students were in the instant period for a normal attendance, and must be treated as a fair decision during the on-the-job training period.

(B) Determination

BJ participated in an internship and on-the-job training conducted in BL from November 23, 2015 to February 29, 2016, as seen earlier. The fact that BJ participated in the attendance at the attendance book of 2015 to 2000, i.e., 9. 2. 2., 10. 21; 21. 4. 11. 18; 11. 18. 25. 12. 25; 12. 1. 2. 2. 201. 25. 201; 2. 2. 13. 201. 206. 15. 206. 206. 3. 206. 3. 3. 206. 3. 206. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 2015. 3. 3. 2015.

In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire arguments, namely, the attendance at the 'BJ' subject, is divided into attendance, absence, and participation, and the attendance of other students is also divided into attendance and absence, unlike other students, there is no evidence to deem that the attendance before November 23, 2015 was erroneous, and even if the attendance at the 'BJ' was damaged and the attendance was changed again, there is no reasonable ground to believe that the attendance was erroneous in the 'official attendance' as alleged by the plaintiffs. This part of the grounds for the disposition is also acknowledged. This part of the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted.

(3) Part 5 of the disposition [Attachment 4] No. 5 (the term "medical language" of 2015)

(A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

In the case of 5 CGs, it is confirmed that there is a close contact with BE during the period of the spread of Mmers, such as the above A. (7), and there is a justifiable reason to guide the suspension of attendance and to treat it as a public decision.

(B) Determination

The university of this case did not have any student who was notified by the health authorities as 's Megos-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s

E) Whether to grant credits due to an error in attendance points (eight persons)

(1) Summary of the reasons for the disposition

The university of this case determined that the attendance score = 20-2X (Provided, That the attendance score shall be rounded off) according to the formula, but the university of this case calculated the attendance score according to the formula (hereinafter referred to as the "detailed guidelines related to attendance"), in violation of the detailed guidelines, erroneously calculated the attendance score for eight students and unfairly granted the credits, as stated in the disposition [5] statement in violation of the detailed guidelines.

(2) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The time when the university of this case revised Article 3 of the School Regulations on the calculation method of the attendance score, and revised the detailed guidelines related to attendance at the university of this case is November 30, 2016. The subjects mentioned in the disposition (5) previously established can be calculated by calculating the attendance score in accordance with the previous provisions.

Although the university of this case announced the method of calculating the attendance score from September 1, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the notice of this case"), the notice of this case was merely a form of guiding the method of calculating the attendance score in order to gather opinions of the department in advance and give sufficient guidance period before preparing detailed guidelines for attendance (hereinafter referred to as "the notice of this case").

Before the detailed guidelines related to attendance were implemented, the relevant professor could give attendance points at his/her own discretion within the scope of 20 points pursuant to Article 3(5)2 of the School Affairs Regulations at the time of the enforcement of the detailed guidelines related to attendance from April 13, 2015. This part of the grounds for the disposition that applied the detailed guidelines related to attendance to the subjects of the year 1 and 2015 are erroneous and illegal.

(3) Facts of recognition

① On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff president and the Director General posted the instant notice on September 1, 2015 regarding “the method of attending school and staff bulletin board” and “the method of calculating the number of attendance points.”

With respect to the method of attending the summary of the instant notice and method of calculating the number of attendance points, the main time of implementation from the second semester of 2015 shall be confirmed and implemented from the second semester of 2015.In addition, the criteria for the 20 points of attendance points and the criteria for the 20 points of the need for improvement are different for each professor, and the clear and unified criteria are required.In the case of attendance processing: the method of calculating the number of attendance points (20 points) where the class hours are at least 3/4 of the class hours, the number of attendance points (20 points) =20-2 (determined time/credit) and the method of calculating the number

② From April 2016, the university of this case, from around 2016 and April 2, 2016, through the procedures for gathering opinions on the actual conditions of each department to establish “detailed matters concerning the recognition of attendance” under Article 56(2) of the School Regulations. From November 30, 2016, the university of this case prescribed the detailed guidelines for attendance as follows, thereby calculating the number of attendance points according to the calculation method.

Article 4 (Method of Calculation of Attendance Points) (1) The number of attendance points shall be 20 points: Provided, That on-the-job training subjects, it may be excluded.

(2) The formula for calculating the attendance score shall be as follows: 1. The attendance score = 20-2 】 (overtime: Credit) 】 (overtime: Credit) 2. The decimal point shall be calculated as burner.

3) Article 3 of the School Administration Regulations before and after November 30, 2016 is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 61 through 66, purport of the whole pleadings

(4) Determination

The Higher Education Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate the standards for school days, credit hours per credit, etc. that may be determined by school regulations, and matters necessary for the recognition of the completion of required credit hours per credit shall be determined by school regulations. According to delegation, Article 59 of the school regulations of the university of this case provides for the standards for sexual recognition (based on the acquisition of credits) of at least 1/4 of the total number of class hours per each subject. Article 61 provides that each subject shall be evaluated with a perfect score of 100 points and by comprehensively considering its attendance, degree of achievement, etc. The school regulations of the university of this case present more detailed guidelines for the method of evaluation of school records.

This part of the grounds for the disposition is that there is an error in calculating the attendance points in violation of the detailed guidelines related to attendance at the six subjects in the year of 2015 and the year of 2016. According to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the teachers in charge of the subjects shall be given the results of completion of credits in compliance with the Higher Education Act, the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the regulations of the university of this case, and shall comply with such standards in calculating the attendance points that constitute the results. However, the instant notice is merely merely a notice of the standard for attendance in order to uniformly calculate the attendance points during the revision of the school regulations and school regulations, and it cannot be deemed that there is a normative effect equivalent to the school regulations. The detailed guidelines for attendance include 10% of the total school regulations and 20% of the total school regulations and 20% of the total school regulations and 10% of the total school regulations and 20% of the total school years and 20% of the total school regulations and 10% of the total school years and 20% of the total school regulations and 10% of the year.

Therefore, as long as the number of teachers in charge of the relevant time meet the minimum number of attendance days (at least 3/4 of the number of class hours) stipulated in school regulations, it cannot be recognized that there is an error in violation of school regulations or calculation of the number of attendance points solely on the basis of the fact that the number of attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance scores within 20 points (20%) under Article 3 of the previous school regulations, and that there is no compliance with detailed guidelines for attendance attendance. This part of the disposition is not recognized, since it is insufficient to recognize that the professor in charge arbitrarily gives attendance points or gives them according to errors, and accordingly the standards for attendance are inadequate and the credits are met due to improper satisfaction

3) Whether the discretionary authority is abused (whether the grounds for the disposition are recognized) or not, (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (c), and (d) of the above subparagraph (a) or (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (4)

A) Part of the order to revoke credits

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed from the purport of the entire pleadings, this part is unlawful inasmuch as the ground for disposition is recognized as well as the corrective order to revoke the credits already granted to the students, in violation of the principle of proportionality.

(1) Where an administrative disposition is issued to the Plaintiffs to revoke the credits already granted to them, a person with a more close and realistic interest in such administrative disposition is not the Plaintiffs but the students whose credits are revoked, and thus, in balancing interests related to the principle of proportionality, the disadvantage of the students whose credits are revoked should also be taken into account.

② The grounds for the disposition in this part arise in the course of study in 2015 and 2016, and most of the students graduated from the university in this case and are working in society at the time of the closure of argument. In the school affairs management, students are in the position of accepting the attendance or absence according to the determination of the professor in charge or the school affairs officer in charge, and thus, the professor in charge did not accurately calculate the attendance points, did not observe the relevant regulations regarding the treatment of the sick or public decision-making, and recognized the sick or public decision-making, even though evidentiary documents are inappropriate, and recognized the credits of the specialized examination-related field training, and recognized the credits of the specialized examination-related field training retroactively. In this respect, it is deemed that there is no relatively little reason for the student’s negligence.

③ In the case of a student in question falling short of the attendance standard, it appears that the number of students were absent due to the failure to meet the actual attendance standard, and the revocation of the credits was granted despite the absence of attendance. Thus, there is no reason to deem that there is a significant possibility of criticism by the relevant student, such as participating in an unreasonable calculation of the attendance score. However, even if the relevant student was absent, there is no difference in the responsibility for giving credits because of the failure to properly manage the school affairs and, therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is a significant difference between the individual student and the professor in charge. Accordingly, the aforementioned subparagraph (a) (4) is separate from other students, and there is no essential difference.

④ In a case where students trust the judgment on the side of the school that the credits of the relevant subject are recognized, and the credits of some subjects are revoked due to the instant disposition 1, the number of students whose graduation are revoked due to the lack of the credits required for graduation can be reasonable. As long as the causes attributable to the Plaintiffs are much larger than that of the Plaintiffs with respect to improper management of school affairs as above, it seems that imposing a harsh liability on the students is likely to impose a disadvantage on the students. This is much higher than the public interest to be achieved by the instant disposition.

B) Part of the request for heavy disciplinary action against teachers and staff: Partial acceptance of deviation or abuse of discretionary power, rejection of the remainder

(1) In relation to AF(2)(a)(7)(BD), '2)(3)(CG, it appears to have taken an attitude at the school entrance management office to recommend the relevant student to suspend school attendance and to take measures for public order on the grounds of close contact with BE in relation to the Mes, and even if it is deemed that the relevant student was engaged in public order that does not conform with the relevant department's manuals or school's guidelines in relation to the Mes, it is not possible to deny the reasons for disposition. However, the competent authority also seems that the competent authority did not prohibit any preventive and preemptive countermeasures against the Mes, it is difficult to deem that there is a reason for improper public order as a professor in charge.N(Military sports subjects 2).

A) In the case of BJ-related cases, even if the professor’s discretion is considered, the reason for disposition was found to be inappropriate to determine an intern or employment as the “official decision on the pertinent subject.” However, there are circumstances, such as ① the fact that it appears with the BJ to be considered in advance, and that BJ-related procedures were not violated or omitted, such as ascertaining whether the applicant was present at work at the time recognized as a public decision, and submission of documentary evidence related to BL. Considering such various circumstances, the part requesting a heavy disciplinary measure against AF andN is unlawful by abusing and abusing the discretionary authority.

(2) In the case of the remaining teachers and staff, ① are in the position of primary responsibility for improper school affairs management; ② the standards for completing higher education credits, which are the standards for the completion of higher education credits have a high possibility of criticism that the law did not properly manage the minimum standards determined by the law, falls under the public interest in line with the purport of the Higher Education Act; ③ even if the former teachers and staff are not the professor in charge of the relevant subject, they are in the position of being responsible for the management and preservation of the attendance division; and even if the grounds for partial disposition are not recognized, the request for heavy disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have exceeded and abused the discretionary authority.

(3) In the case of TPP, the above 2) relating to 'whether or not to grant credits following false entry in the attendance book'

B) Of the dental grounds of the above, the part related to the student BW, teachers Y, AI, AO, and CH are not recognized as grounds for the above 2) disposition. However, the above teachers are not acknowledged as grounds for other disposition, namely, granting credits due to false entries in the attendance (as to the part related to CI, CJ), granting credits due to insufficient attendance (as to teachers Y, AI, AO), and granting credits due to absence of evidential documents (as to teachers Y, AI, AO). Thus, it is not recognized as a part of the grounds for the above disposition. However, even on the basis of the remaining grounds, if the request for a heavy disciplinary measure is reasonable, such corrective measure may not be deemed to have abused or abused discretion, and as such, it cannot be deemed that the above measures are significantly excessive even if the above grounds are acknowledged as grounds for the above 2).

4) Sub-committee

(1) With respect to the corrective order ordering 89 students to cancel the credits, the corrective order must be revoked, since the grounds for the disposition are not recognized or the contents recognized are also erroneous in the deviation and abuse of discretionary power.

(2) In the case of the part ordering a heavy disciplinary action against the teachers and staff, the part regarding X, BT, BU, AF that recognizes the deviation and abuse of discretionary authority, and the part concerning AF that acknowledges the deviation and abuse of discretionary authority among the teachers and staff related to paragraphs (5) and (b) (5) of this Article shall be revoked, and the remainder shall not be erroneous.

B. Disposition 2 of this case

1) Summary of the reasons for the disposition

According to Article 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act and Article 8 of the Regulations on the Audit of Teaching Staff of the University of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules on the Audit of Teaching Staff Members"), the hours of study per credit shall be at least 15 hours every semester, and the hours of study per week shall be at least 50 minutes every semester, and the hours of study per week shall be at least 10 minutes (10 minutes every semester). The professor G of the 2016-year 2016-year 2-hour 2-hour 2-hour 2-hour 2-hour 3-hour 2-hour 12-hour 12-hour 5-hour 5-hour 10-hour 10-hour 50-hour 2-hour 20-hour 20-hour 200-hour 732-hour 30-hour 2.

2) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

The subjects of the "Adjustment Money" include 12 hours in total, 12 hours in total, 12 hours in each week's lecture, debate, and practice, and 12 hours in total, 10 minutes in each week's work hours after being employed and being able to lead the rapid settlement and to prevent industrial accidents, considering that the rearrangement money and cleaning ability are treated as common ability factors of the National Skill Standard and occupational ability. After being employed, the subjects of the "Adjustment Money" consisting of 12 hours in total, 12 hours in each week's lecture, debate, and practice. Pursuant to Article 24-2 (1) of the University Regulations, the subjects of the "Adjustment Money" should be approved by the president for the detailed operation plan of the university of this case, and the total 10 minutes in each week's practice should be recognized through 50 minutes in total, and 10 minutes in each week's practice hours should be recognized through 50 minutes in total.

B) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

In full view of the fact that even if the reason for family disposition is recognized, the acts of lectures, discussions, practice were conducted, lack of class hours, students’ trust in school lectures and operation plans, completed the course of study in good faith, and the degree of disadvantage due to the disposition compared to the content of the violation is excessively harsh, it is unlawful to revoke credits and impose heavy disciplinary action against the teachers and staff on the ground of this part of the reason for the disposition is against the law by deviating from and abusing discretion.

3) Determination

A) Facts of recognition

① The subjects for cleaning the emotional money were established for new students in the first semester in 2016, and the credits for completion are two credits. Students organized a team by the department to which they belong and carried out the activities of cleaning the 'joint space' and ‘personal space'.

(2) In the case of ‘joint space', G designated the area in charge of ‘CL', ‘CL', ‘No. 138 for each team organized by students, and ‘No. 216 for each group organized by students, etc., and then made it possible to clean the ‘community' of the place of work for 13 weeks in total (excluding the day of events, temporary holidays, etc.) through ‘CL', ‘CL', ‘No. 138 for each group organized by students.' In the case of ‘personal space', the space of students, such as dormitories, was in charge of the place of work.

③ Each team was the team leader, and each team was appointed as a guidance professor for each workplace, but the guidance professor was employed from the university of this case, in addition to G. The student was confirmed by the guidance professor for each team on the details of the activities at the workplace in charge of each team, cleaning the district designated by the guidance professor, and arranging the required time, cleaning area, and cleaning. In addition, the student prepared a place of activities for cleaning the 'personal space', and the head of each team submitted a report on the cleaning of the 'personal space' to G on every day.

Whether some of the inspection contents of the "check of cleaning money (intersection between common ditchs)" table ? . ② Whether the class and corridor are separated? ② Whether the garbage has been separated? ② Whether the garbage has been clean? ② Whether the area around the computer, the school, and the locks is clean? The part of the implementation contents of the "cleaning between the common ditch???????????????????????????????????????????

Before wintering, it was dried by using ready-mix dust, bread boomers, etc. that fell away from the mixing and mixed-mix display room.No use during wintering, it was dried by using ready-mix mixing, display stand, work site, chairs, etc. under 138, which is dust he has not been used.The cleaning area was cleaned and CM teaching thickness has been inspected. The author was in charge of the floor, after cutting up the floor on the upper door and cutting up the floor on the upper door, and dried up and dried the door as broom. After completing school lessons, he was dried up with a broom turging board which was written by glick. After cleaning the lessons, he was dried up by a professor, part of the details of personal space rearrangement - cleaning money - cleaning a dormitory, cleaning the toilet-mix and cleaning burging burging burging burging burging burging burging.

④ On June 16, 2016, the instant university held CN. The students participated in the presentation conference by arranging the points of each team, including the fact that they were displayed on the said subject, and the fact that they were shot through cleaning the liquidation money, and the scholarship of KRW 50,000 to KRW 30,000 was awarded to the total six teams.

⑤ The evaluation was conducted on the basis of 20% of the attendance, 60% of the evaluation based on the details of the above activity area, and 20% of the announcement, and 'P/NP' method. All students who were not absent for at least seven hours were assessed as 'P'.

6. According to the "Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency" data collection published on October 2005 and 2005, the method of arranging and putting down the place of work at the place of work to secure the safe passage, the arrangement of the floor at the place of work (prevention of getting off and off), the place of storage of raw materials or semi-finished products, garbage, dust, oil sludge, etc., and the arrangement and settlement of machinery and equipment at each place of work and industrial accident cases, such as the arrangement and settlement of machinery and equipment (the last day of the public machinery, surrounding areas of the Gu road, surrounding areas of the Gu road, etc.) are introduced. The teaching materials of the CO set up in advance a inventory, equipment, and space, set a storage place, set up a storage place, and set up on-site inspection reports.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 29 through 36 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), purport of whole pleadings

B) Whether the grounds for disposition are recognized

According to Article 9(1) through (4) of the Framework Act on Education, a school in charge of higher education shall have public nature, and the education shall be performed with emphasis on whole person education including the development of creativity and the cultivation of human nature for students. Article 16 of the same Act provides that founders and managers of schools shall secure, operate, and manage facilities, equipment, finance, teachers, etc. for education as prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes. As seen earlier, the former Higher Education Act and its Enforcement Decree enacted pursuant to the Framework Act on Education provide for the completion of subjects to complete at least 15 hours per semester.

In 2016, 2016, 2016, 2. 30 hours of study should be completed for the purpose of completing credits. However, in full view of the above recognized facts and the following circumstances revealed therefrom, 12 hours of study among the 12-hour cleaning subjects cannot be recognized as 'on-the-job training', and thus, it cannot be deemed that the hours of study per credits under the Enforcement Decree of the former Higher Education Act have been satisfied. Thus, giving 2 credits to the above subject constitutes improper organization and operation of curriculum. The grounds for the disposition of the second disposition of this case are recognized.

(1) The freedom of professors is the freedom for professors and researchers at higher education institutions, such as universities and colleges, to teach and teach in accordance with their academic research and achievements, and is protected as the content and method of professors’ freedom of learning guaranteed by Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Article 31(4) of the Constitution also guarantees the autonomy of universities, which form the basis of the freedom of learning and teaching. However, the freedom of learning at universities and colleges may be restricted pursuant to the general principle of statutory reservation (Article 37(2) of the Constitution), so the professor in charge may freely use a teaching plan, organization of class hours, standards of evaluation, etc., but the term “cleaning money” should comply with the limits of the Higher Education Act, Enforcement Decree, and school regulations to recognize the credits in question, as long as the subject constitutes higher education and completion of the credits at junior colleges.

② Article 47 of the Higher Education Act provides that the purpose of a junior college is to train professionals necessary for the development of the State and society by teaching and researching expert knowledge and theories with respect to various fields of society, and cultivating talents. Since practical training is a process of directly checking knowledge acquired from a lecture, it is necessary to contact or apply the contents of learning, and it is also necessary to grant direct and specific margin to the teaching staff or teaching assistants, and it is also necessary to give the teaching staff or teaching assistants with regard to the practical training course.However, in the case of the 'contractual cleaning’ subject, it is physically impossible for a professor G to provide a margin for the practical training course or results, and rather, it seems that the results of cleaning or cleaning are designated within the specific place of work by other professors who belong to the university of this case who are not G or college of this case, and the result of cleaning or cleaning the given place of cleaning.

③ Practice on the cleaning of emotional money was conducted every 10 minutes of a day by organizing money and cleaning of ‘joint space' and ‘personal space'. In particular, in the case of ‘joint space', the inspection table is merely a part of ‘cleaning personnel', ‘I am far away from garbage, and the surrounding area', and the practice details also do not include more than repeated cleaning for ordinary U.S. dollars as the degree of brooming the floor of the lecture room or arranging the turgs used by the professor. The part which may be seen as having used the exhaust theory during class is nothing more than a part of ‘brooming by a hotel drying method'.

④ The Plaintiff asserts that the purpose of the subjects of cleaning the adjusted money is to prevent industrial accidents, improve the ppuri job ability, etc., and that the training for practical training is efficient every 10 percent of each day in order to nurture the habits. However, it is not possible to confirm whether the study theory to regard it as the practical training, whether it is directly and concretely applied, whether the professor in charge directly and concretely controlled it, and whether it is actually controlled by the professor in charge, and there is a big difference between the details of the practical training conducted in the materials of the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency or the CO's liquidation money to provide specific guidelines for the prevention of industrial accidents or to educate the reorganization and settlement according to the characteristics of each workplace.

C) Whether discretionary authority is deviates or abused or abused

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances known from the purport of the entire pleadings, the corrective order to revoke the credits already granted to the students among the two dispositions of this case violates the principle of proportionality, but the part requesting a heavy disciplinary measure against the teachers cannot be deemed to have violated the principle of proportionality or exceeded or abused discretionary power.

(1) Part of the request for revocation of credits: Acknowledgement of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

① As seen earlier, the issue of deviation from and abuse of discretionary power ought to be taken into account the disadvantage of the students. Even if the Defendant, a supervisory authority, did not correct the “cleaning of the reorganization money” subject provided by the pertinent university, it is in the position to hear the number of students in reality, unless the Defendant, who is the supervisory authority, takes corrective measures. Although the above students failed to teach the class, they seem to have faithfully participated in the class provided, there is no reason to believe that the above students

② The Defendant, who is a party to the case, or was negligent in supervising the Plaintiffs, is deemed reasonable to bear the burden of primaryly. As the number of teaching time is insufficient, allowing students, who are merely those who faithfully participated in the given class, to reduce the outcome of the class is practically responsible.

③ The grounds for this part of the disposition occurred during the second semester in 2015, and some of the students were canceled due to the above corrective order due to the cancellation of the graduation due to the lack of the graduation credits, which is likely to put an unexpected disadvantage.

(2) The part of the Plaintiff president and the faculty in charge of the heavy disciplinary action: Exclusion from and abuse of discretionary authority

① In light of the purport of the Framework Act on Education, the Higher Education Act enacted thereunder, and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, higher education is a higher education, establishing a curriculum that is unable to meet the standards specified by statutes, granting credits to students who have completed such curriculum, and granting a specialized bachelor’s degree based on this, is determined as a serious illegal act that infringes on the public nature of the school provided by the Framework Act on Education and the right of learning of learners. Therefore, it is necessary

Matters concerning the standards for completion of higher education and the results management should be considered as the basic matters that should be known to the teachers in the position of teaching and supervising higher education. However, the university of this case opened and operated the defective subjects, such as the "organization money and cleaning", and this may lead to the distortization of the operation of higher education.

③ The number of students subject to the revocation of the credits due to the question of the attendance of the class, such as the reorganization money and cleaning, is 732. The part of the corrective order to revoke the credits is contrary to the principle of proportionality. However, it is reasonable to evaluate the illegality of the relevant teachers in light of the quality level of higher education or the public nature of education, and thus, it is reasonable to assess the illegality of the relevant teachers. In that the Plaintiff president is also a person subject to the final approval, there is no circumstance to see the degree of responsibility different from the teacher in charge, and even if there are some domestic circumstances, such contents may be considered to be subject to a specific disciplinary decision in the disciplinary procedure.

C. Disposition 3 of this case

1) Summary of the reasons for the disposition

According to the finance and accounting rules of private school institutions and the special rules on the finance and accounting rules of private school institutions [Attachment 1], welfare expenses were paid as welfare expenses, but the university of this case paid 59,150,000 won in total as welfare expenses under the name of "payment of audit expenses to be contributed to the development of this school in 2015 and 2016 to school personnel and school-related persons" in the school expenses accounting.

2) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

A) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

In accordance with Article 29 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teachers and Article 26 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Workers, a person who has contributed to the development of universities for a multi-year period, a person who has contributed to the development of administrative operation, and other school personnel and services (security, cleaning) that have prevented losses in advance, and even according to the financial and accounting rules of private school institutions, the expenses incurred in the welfare and boosting morale of school personnel may be disbursed. Accordingly, the university of this case has paid welfare expenses as a concept of reward through the evaluation of duties to boost the morale of school personnel. The subject was selected through the school affairs council and the welfare expenses cannot be interpreted as being limited in kind. Since the cash, etc. for the purpose of welfare is also deemed as included in welfare expenses, it is legitimate to pay welfare expenses according to the name. The three dispositions of this case are unlawful.

B) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

Even if the ground for domestic disposition is recognized, it is excessive to order the recovery of the entire amount at issue. In the case of another school juristic person, the defendant did not request corrective measures such as recovery, so the disposition at issue in this case is also in violation of the principle of equity.

3) Relevant provisions

(2) The expenditure budget of the accounts belonging to the school shall not be used for any purpose other than the purpose, and shall not be transferred to other accounts in the school expenses accounts.(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of the same Article, if the budget is in excess of the budget between paragraphs (1) and (2) of the same budget, it may be mutually converted.(4) If the president of a corporation or the head of a school makes the conversion under the provisions of paragraph (3) of the same Article, the president of the corporation or the head of the school shall not make the conversion.

(2) In addition to the accounts prescribed in attached Tables 1 through 3, if the nature or amount of the accounts other than those prescribed in attached Table 1 through 3 is important, the accounts may be added. In this case, the addition of the accounts shall be within the scope of the relevant Articles, paragraphs, and items of the Fund Account (Article 17 related) table (Article 17 related) of the Special Rule on the Financial and Accounting Rules of Private School Institutions, Article 17 (Account) (1) of the Special Rule on the Financial and Accounting Rules of the School Accounting, and the items of the accounts of the school accounting.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

4) Determination

A) Facts of recognition

① The university of this case organized the budget bill with ‘45,00,000,000, 45,000,000, and 10,000,000, and other 10,000,000, for the account subject of 'welfare expenses' in the fiscal year 2015. Meanwhile, the university of this case organized the budget bill with ‘prestigiousners 16,00,00,000,00 as the same account subject in the fiscal year 2016.' On the other hand, the university of this case was drafted the ‘prestigious leave expenses' as the account subject of 'worker remuneration' in the budget bill.

② In 2015 and 2016, the university of this case selected ‘school staff and related persons who have contributed to the development of the school', and paid cash or merchandise coupons from KRW 50,000 to KRW 50,000 under the name of ‘special allowances', ‘audit expenses', etc. (hereinafter “the money of this case”). The money of this case was disbursed in terms of ‘school expenses accounts' after the welfare account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 37 through 42 (including provisional number), Eul evidence No. 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

B) the existence of the reasons for the disposition

(1) According to Article 4 of the finance and accounting rules of private school institutions, Article 15 subparagraph 2 of the Regulations on Special Cases concerning the Finance and Accounting Rules of Private school Institutions (hereinafter “Rules on Special Cases”), Article 17 and attached Table 1 of the Regulations on Special Cases concerning the Finance and Accounting Rules of Private School Institutions (hereinafter “Rules on Special Cases”), the finance and accounting of corporations and schools shall be operated in a sound manner. The expenditure budget of the accounts belonging to schools shall not be used for any purpose other than the original purpose, and the “welfare expenses” refers to various welfare expenses such as spot-type welfare expenses, clothes, personal equipment, etc. disbursed for the welfare of school personnel.

[Attachment 1] The expenditure items of the school expenses accounting include the salary for teachers, teachers' bonuses, various allowances for teachers, corporate accounting, and various allowances for employees as the expenditure items of the school expenses accounting.

(2) In full view of the fact that the instant money is for some of the faculty members selected on a certain basis, it was an audit expense, a 'audit expense', and a 'special allowance for life saving', and that the instant university organized and operated the item of 'name saving leave allowance' as a single account item belonging to 'building remuneration', and thus, in the case of 'name saving leave allowance', it seems that the instant money was already already operated in the form of 'building allowance', it seems that it was for the faculty members belonging to the instant university, but it was a bonus or monetary reward similar to the bonus or monetary reward paid only for some of the faculty members classified according to a certain standard.

(3) However, in light of the language and text of the foregoing provision and the accounts of school expenses or corporate accounts separately set up separate accounts that set forth the payment account of bonuses, welfare expenses as the item of expenditure of school expenses accounts shall be interpreted as items of expenditure directly necessary for the welfare of school personnel or in the nature of compensation for actual expenses, and welfare expenses shall not be operated as monetary rewards or bonuses. The accounts of school expenses in private schools may be disbursed only for the subjects prescribed by the Private School Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, the finance and accounting rules of private school institutions, and the special rules. Since the instant amount is not consistent with the welfare expenses account, the disbursement of the instant amount would be improper execution of welfare expenses in violation of the special rules [Attachment 1].

(4) Even if there are grounds for granting a reward to the faculty members in the regulations on the personnel management of teachers and the personnel management regulations, and there is a need for a monetary payment at the level of boosting fraud, since the disbursement was made in a form that does not coincide with the purpose of the relevant account and the relevant regulations on the personnel management of teachers, not by the relevant account and the relevant regulations on the personnel management of teachers, as long as the disbursement was made in the form that does not fit for the purpose of the school expenses accounting, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed justified, and even if the disbursement was made through the enrollment fee deliberation committee and the

5) Whether the discretionary authority is deviates or abused

Considering that the inspection of actual condition and its disposition are determined as part of the exercise of appropriate supervisory authority over private schools, barring any special circumstance to deem that the Defendant’s disposition is objectively unreasonable in light of the relevant statutes or the purpose and purport of the correction of university structure, it cannot be determined that the Defendant violated the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power. This part of the disposition is the purport of recovering the amount paid differently from the purpose of the school expenses accounting, and it does not constitute an unlawful deviation or abuse of discretionary authority in view of the purport of withdrawing the amount wrongfully executed. It is insufficient to deem that the redemption of the amount paid differently by the Plaintiffs’ assertion is contrary to the principle of equity when compared to other schools.

D. Disposition 4 of this case

1) Summary of the reasons for the disposition

According to the work process guidelines regarding the allowance for faculty members of the instant university, assignment allowances may be separately determined and paid to the faculty to be assigned to the position within budgetary limits, and research expenses and school guidance expenses may be paid monthly, but it shall not be paid to the head of the relevant university, etc., and 9% of the monthly salary may be paid to the head of the relevant university, etc. as a management allowance. However, even though the term of office of the J (the term until December 26, 2014) expires, the term of office of the president of the J (the term of office until December 2014) has expired, such as the payment of assignment allowances and research expenses from December 27, 2014 to April 30, 2015 (the former president’s payment status).

2) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

M was appointed as the president of J, but due to the lack of experience in school affairs, the former president has to be decided by the Council. Accordingly, the last day of April 2015 (the closing date of April 2014) through the board of directors, the school affairs council, and the entire teachers and staff council set the transfer period and the J and M carried out approval together with the position of the transferor and transferee, and only paid M M substitute allowances, etc. to J during the transfer period. Since M received allowances, etc. to be received by M is merely a receipt by the J, it does not cause any damage as a result of the school expenses accounts, and it is merely a degree of failing to strictly comply with some regulations during the transfer period, the request for correction of the instant 4 disposition in question is unlawful, and it is too harsh to order the full recovery of the money.

3) Determination

(A) The Special Rule [Attachment 1] provides the basis for the expenditure of various allowances for teachers, such as fixed-term allowances, fixed-term allowances, food allowances, student instruction expenses, etc., based on the item of ‘research expenses' and ‘research expenses', ‘research expenses', ‘research expenses', ‘research books purchase, publication of research reports, etc. The university of this case has the basis for the payment of assignment allowances, management allowances, research expenses, and school instruction expenses through the "Guidelines on the Management of Teachers' Allowances."

(B) Although the term of office of the president of J was expired on December 26, 2014, and around that time, even if he did not engage in class activities from December 27, 2014 to April 30, 2015, the fact that 20,238,017 won was paid to J is no dispute between the parties concerned. According to the guidelines for allowances, the aforementioned expenditure is not subject to assignment allowances, management allowances, research expenses, school guidance expenses, and thus constitutes improper expenditure in violation of Article 4 of the Rules on Finance and Accounting, Article 15 subparag. 2, Article 17 of the Rules on Special Cases, and Article 17 [Attachment Table 1] of the Regulations on the Handling of Teachers’ Allowances for Private Schools, and the Act on the Handling of Teachers’ Allowances for the University of this case. Considering that the accounts for school expenses are strictly limited to the purpose of interpreting other accounts or lending, it cannot be deemed that there was a difference in the total amount of expenses paid to M&A, and thus, it cannot be justified.

(C) Therefore, the correction of the instant 4 disposition pointing this out is lawful, and it cannot be deemed that the discretion was abused considering the nature of the redemption measure to restore the situation where the 4 disposition was unfairly disbursed as seen earlier. The Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is without merit.

E. Disposition 5 of this case

1) Summary of the reasons for the disposition

The university of this case requires that the matters concerning the allowances shall be prescribed by the work process guidelines for school personnel's allowances, and the above guidelines do not provide for the regulations for the bonus of school personnel.

Nevertheless, the instant university, through the president’s internal resolution, paid KRW 4,00,000 to J as incentives based on the result of the CP, such as the payment of KRW 4,00,000 to J for the role of “general business advisory” as incentives based on the result of the CP, and the payment of KRW 43,00,000 to the total 28 faculty members, such as the details of payment of bonus as “the details of payment of KRW 4,00 on June 12, 2015 and February 28, 2016” (the 42 pages of the disposition).

2) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A) According to Article 2 of the Work Guideline for Teachers’ Allowances and Articles 3(3) and 4(1) of the Regulations on the Entrustment of External Business, bonuses related to bonuses may be paid. According to Articles 29 and 30 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teachers, if a person has outstanding ability to perform his/her duties, or has made a significant contribution or achievement to the development of the school, he/she may be rewarded.

B) The university of this case received CS rating from the CP implemented by Q and CR on June 2015. The Plaintiffs paid performance rates to the participating faculty members in order to lower and encourage them, and promote the improvement of performance, and paid special performance rates through a resolution of the Council of Educational Affairs and the process of obtaining approval from the president of the Plaintiff. According to Article 15-2(1) [Attachment Table 4] subparag. 3(2) of the Financial Accounting Rules of private school institutions, “expenses for the welfare and boosting morale of teachers and staff” may be disbursed, and the establishment and payment of performance rates related to the CP program is not for the purpose of enhancing the welfare and capacity of teachers and staff members. Therefore, the organization and payment of performance rates related to the CP program is not for the purpose other than the budget.

3) Relevant provisions

(1) The classification of the budget items of the accounts belonging to the business of a private school institution (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education on February 24, 2017) and the budget items of the accounts belonging to a corporation shall be as specified in attached Tables 1 through 4. [Attachment 1] The budget item of the school accounting expenditure budget (related to Article 15-2(1)) of the school accounting budget (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education on February 24, 2017)

A person shall be appointed.

(3) The remuneration of teachers under Article 11 (Types of Teachers' Allowances), Article 50 (Remuneration) of the Regulations of the University of this case, shall be determined by the president based on qualifications, experience, and the degree of difficulty and responsibility of the duties, and may be delegated to the president.The remuneration of the general staff under Article 72 (Remuneration) shall be determined by the president according to the class and the period of service so as to be proper according to the degree of difficulty and responsibility of the general living cost, wages of civilians, etc., and the remuneration of the office staff may be delegated to the president, but the remuneration of the office staff may be delegated to the president.""Article 4 (Definition of Terms) (Definition of Terms)" refers to the sum of the remuneration of the office staff, the remuneration of the office staff, and other various kinds of allowances.

Except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts and subordinate statutes and regulations, the work process guidelines for the allowance of the teaching staff and the payment of allowances to the teaching staff shall be made in accordance with this guidelines.In the event that it falls under any of the following subparagraphs as a teacher of O Personnel Management Regulations and Article 29 (Reward) of the Regulations, a prize shall be granted.1. A person who has made outstanding contributions or achievements to the development of a school due to outstanding ability to perform his/her duties and who has made outstanding contributions or achievements in the development of the school, Article 30 (Specialization of Awards) (1) may be awarded a commendation and awarded an extra prize in the name of the president or the president.2.

4) Determination

A) Facts of recognition

① From May 12, 2015 to May 15, 2015, Q and R implemented the CP. From the evaluation on June 2015, the university of this case was included in the 19th junior college (hereinafter “CP program”).

② On June 8, 2015, the instant university held a meeting of the office and the Minister, and discussed the Plaintiff’s president, the principal of school affairs, the Minister of Industry and Energy, the head of the planning and budget office, and the head of the attached office, with the attendance of the Plaintiff’s president, the director general, the director of the planning and budget office, and the head of the attached office. The standards for the payment of piece rates discussed at the meeting of the office and the Minister were to pay KRW 4 million to KRW 1 million according to the degree of involvement, and paid KRW 34,00,000 to KRW 25 in total after the approval of the office and the Minister’s meeting and the Plaintiff’s president as the CP business performance bonus (hereinafter “CP business performance bonus”).

③ On February 2016, the teachers’ personnel committee of the pertinent university conducted a public investigation on D (Food Nutrition and Professor at that time), CT (Clinicalology and associate professor at that time) and F (F) on the achievement of public services, and prepared a protocol of public service, including ‘management and improvement of education quality' and ‘contribution to the development of schools'.

④ On February 29, 2016, the university of this case held a school affairs committee and discussed the Plaintiff’s president, NCS support director, the school affairs director, the industry-academic partnership director, the planning and budget director, the CU head, and the assistant director in the presence of the assistant director. During that period, participants passed a resolution on “the special bonus payment should be made to the high school planning and budget director, the industry-academic partnership promotion director, and the NCS support director,” and they paid KRW 500,000 to D on the ground that they contributed to the assignment of office and director from 2005 by evaluating the degree of contribution to the university development.

(6) According to the results of the School Affairs Committee, the university of this case paid a total of 9 million won as above in the accounts of “school teachers’ bonus” and “special bonus” (hereinafter “special bonus”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entry in Gap's evidence Nos. 42 through 45, 69, 70, 71 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Specific determination

(1) According to Article 29 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Teachers and Staff and Article 26 of the Regulations on Personnel Management of the University of this case, the University of this case may award prizes in cases where a person has outstanding ability to perform his/her duties or falls under any of the subparagraphs, and may award prizes in the name of the president or the president as a content of rewards. Since each of the above provisions separately prescribes detailed matters, the president of the University of this case may specify the criteria for rewards or determine kinds of prizes, kinds of prizes, payment procedures, etc. However, in this case, there are no extenuating circumstances to deem that the president of the University of this case determined such detailed matters and the enforcement procedures are carried out accordingly, and all of the bonuses paid are paid in the form of cash payment, 2. In light of the method and contents of payment such as the fact that the president of the University or the president of the board of directors’ commendation is not awarded together, it is difficult to view that the CP project performance bonus paid or special bonus for the winner was paid as a "special reward for the winner of reward."

(2) According to the Regulations on Entrustment of External Projects, an external project subject to piece rates falls under “an project awarded out from outside,” and the scope of piece rates is within the scope of school budget out of 4% of the amount of entrustment of an external project. However, performance rates of the CP project are paid on the ground that the university contributed to the annual evaluation of the university of this case. Special bonus is paid on the ground that it contributed to the annual evaluation of the university of this case, and there is no review or evaluation of the amount of piece rates based on whether the project was awarded out from outside, or whether the amount of performance rates was paid out of 4% of the amount of entrustment. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above amount was a lawful payment under the Regulations on Entrustment of External Projects.

(3) As seen earlier, the special rules provide the basis for the payment of various bonus, etc. to the faculty members in the account. Articles 11 and 12 of the Regulations on Remuneration of the University of this case provide that the payment method of various allowances to the faculty members shall be made according to each item within the scope of the budget pursuant to the Articles of Incorporation and the work process guidelines for the faculty members. Article 13 of the above regulations provides that the payment method of various allowances to the faculty members shall be made according to each item within the scope of the budget. Article 11 and 12 of the Regulations on the Remuneration of the Faculty Members provides that the "regular allowance" of the school's remuneration regulations is not stipulated in the standards or procedures for the payment of other bonus. The articles of incorporation of the University of this case shall be determined by the president according to the degree of difficulty and responsibilities of the faculty members and the staff members, and there is no specific provision on the payment method of the school's remuneration or the payment method of the staff members' allowance in addition to the provision that the president may delegate it to the president.

(4) Some of the circumstances suggesting that faculty members who received the CP performance bonus or special bonus have contributed to the CP projects of the instant university, including the fact that the payment was made in 2015 and around 2016, and that there was a considerable time for them to receive the money due to the instant 5 disposition, correspond to the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the private interest of the faculty members who received the money is considerably infringed. However, considering the fact that the demands for the instant 5 disposition are to recover bonus and allowances and to take revenue measures in the accounts of school expenses, it is intended to return the outcome of improper execution as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s assertion on deviation and abuse of discretionary power cannot be accepted.

F. Disposition 6 of this case

1) Summary of the reasons for the disposition

The university of this case prepared the "Regulations on the Payment of Business Promotion Expenses" in violation of the upper regulations, and attached [Attachment] based on the above guidelines] was paid the total amount of KRW 27,200,000 to nine persons, such as the "The Payment Statement of the Monthly Fixed Amount of Business Promotion Expenses" in 2015, resulting in a result that it is impossible to confirm the relevance of business because it did not go through the settlement procedure through evidence after execution.

M was appointed as the president on December 2014, but the former presidentJ paid 14,000,000 won for four months from January 2015 to April 2015.

2) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) Since the total amount of KRW 15,800,000 paid to J and Q is a plan to recover from the accounts of school expenses, this part of the grounds for disposition does not dispute.

(2) In the case of business promotion expenses paid to the rest of the assignment professors, the pertinent university was not fully equipped with evidence while paying business promotion expenses of KRW 100,00 or KRW 150,000 to KRW 1.50,000. However, the pertinent amount was spent in relation to the business activities, such as meetings for business promotion, food expenses, transportation expenses, and ordinary survey expenses for school employees, and there was a related credit card disbursement and settlement statement. Of the instant disposition 5, the grounds for disposition are not acknowledged in light of the settlement of accounts.

3) Determination

A) Facts of recognition

(1) The contents of the "Provisions concerning the payment of business promotion expenses" determined by the university of this case are as follows.

The purpose of Article 1 (Purpose) of the Regulations on the Payment of Business Promotion Expenses is to prescribe the procedures and standards for the payment of business promotion expenses in the payment of the university or college concerned.The purpose of Article 2 (Definition and Purposes of Use) is to prescribe the procedures and standards for the payment of business promotion expenses. The term "business promotion expenses" means expenses in the nature of confidential expenses for which the purpose of use is not open to the public or the evidential documents concerning the receipt are not attached to the necessary expenses in order to smoothly perform the affairs related to the following affairs, such as consultation with domestic and foreign personnel and business, investigation and research, conclusion of a contract, student guidance, etc., in order to smoothly perform the affairs related to the following affairs.

Article 4 (Time and Method of Payment) The approval of the "money sheet" stating the purpose of use and the receipt or payment certificate of the user shall be collected and processed at the time the reason for the payment of the business promotion expenses arises.Article 5 (Keeping of Records) ① The document verifying the expenses paid is substituted by the receipt or payment certificate of the user and the receipt of the customer does not require the receipt of the customer. ② The school personnel in receipt of the business promotion expenses shall settle the expenses along with the receipt: Provided, That this shall not apply to the expenses for which the use is not open to the public or for which the disbursement document cannot be received.

The university of this case determined business promotion expenses from KRW 150,00 to KRW 200,00 per month and paid them together with the payment.

(3) At the time of the inspection of actual conditions, H (the Minister), the representative (I) signed a letter of confirmation that “the business operation expenses were paid to the president of the University of this case, the chief of the office, and the Minister in a monthly fixed amount and did not go through the procedure of settlement through evidence after the execution.” D, F, CM, CT, and E filed an objection with the Defendant after the inspection of actual conditions of this case, and submitted their personal credit card receipts printed out.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 46-1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 10-10, the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Specific determination

(1) According to the provisions of Articles 12 and 17(1) [Attachment 1] of the Regulations on Special Cases concerning the Financial and Accounting Rules of Private School Institutions, revenue or property belonging to accounts for school expenses cannot be transferred to other accounts or used unlawfully for purposes other than the original purpose, and "business promotion expenses" are limited to the management expenses incurred particularly in the performance of duties of school juristic persons only for the purpose of the management of the affairs of school juristic persons.

(2) Of the guidelines of the university of this case, the provision that requires the attachment of the details of the execution, such as receipts, merely because it is merely a mere internal standard of the university of this case that did not provide evidence before and after the disbursement or did not simply attach a detailed statement of execution, its disbursement is not unlawful. However, the above indirect official business expenses are stipulated as management expenses in the lower account of the "management and operation expenses" under the special rules, including 'management and operation expenses' accounts and expenses in kind, 'the cost of the spot food service,' including 'the cost of the spot food service, 'other operation expenses scheduled as the cost of the various meetings', 'the cost of the school' and 'other operation expenses scheduled as the cost of the various meetings, 'the cost of the school', 'the cost of the school', which is the account of the teacher's remuneration, and 'the cost of the school of this case, after the settlement of evidence or the purpose of the execution guidelines of the school of this case, are separately provided to the user who did not have any authority to use the above.

(7) The ground for the disposition pointing this out also is recognized, and considering that it is a disposition ordering recovery, it shall not be deemed that the discretionary authority has been abused.

G. Disposition 8 of this case

1) Summary of the reasons for the disposition

From March 9, 2012 to September 20, 2016, the university of this case, in violation of Articles 3 and 9-2 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Faculty Members, was appointed by holding only 250 teachers without the consent of the board of directors, and the total of 70 teachers was retroactively appointed. Since 2012, Article 54-3(1) of the Private School Act, Article 10-4 of the Public Educational Officials Act, Article 33 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 8-2, and Article 9-3 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Faculty Personnel of Universities and Colleges, and neglected to appoint teachers, such as failing to inquire about the grounds for disqualification, and failing to conduct an identity inquiry.

2) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A) Only the teachers’ personnel committee is held and the appointment without the consent procedure of the board of directors is merely a part due to the failure to perform the duties of the employees in charge. On June 28, 2016, the Plaintiff corporation amended its articles of incorporation to ensure that it can report to the board of directors ex post facto, thereby improving the number of fundamental issues. With respect to the part that the employee neglected to appoint teachers, it cannot be deemed that the pertinent duties were omitted and that the person in charge did not confirm the grounds for disqualification due to his/her retirement.

B) As can be seen, this part of the disposition cannot be deemed as a serious mistake, and in light of the fact that the person subject to the disposition was not directly involved in the act of violation, and that the measures to prevent recurrence were established, the disposition of this case was unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary authority.

3) Whether the discretionary authority is deviates or abused

In this part, there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts of the reasons for the disposition, and the personnel R, S, T, and U demanded a warning in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in No. 14 and No. 15 of the evidence No. 14 and No. 15 of the evidence No. 1 of this part, and Q, who requested the disposition of "the personnel management and school affairs personnel or the personnel management personnel of the school affairs department at the time," as the Director General of the School Affairs Management Office.

The university of this case conducted procedures for the appointment of teachers without the consent of the board of directors in violation of the regulations on the personnel management of teachers, and did not inquire about the grounds for disqualification for the appointment of teachers prescribed by the relevant statutes. In the case of appointment without the consent of the board of directors, the university of this case does not seem to have grounds for disciplinary action against the abuse of the plaintiffs' discretionary authority, such as "in the case of an employee" from March 9, 2012 to September 20, 2016, and "in the case of appointment without the consent of the board of directors, from March 9, 2013 to June 20, 2016," "in the case of the retroactive appointment date, 250, total number of appointment is 70, and the period of omission of the grounds for disqualification for appointment has reached the inspection of actual status of this case since 2012, and there is no reason for disciplinary action against the head of the team or the general manager of the department in charge."

(h) Whether the person is related to the disposition of this case (the common assertion in each disposition of this case);

1) The gist of the Plaintiff president’s assertion

A) Illegal disposition against a person who is not the other party to an administrative disposition

Since the president of the Plaintiff was merely an institution of a private school and did not have a legal personality separately, he/she cannot become the subject of rights and obligations and shall not become the other party to an administrative disposition. The reason why the president of the Plaintiff’s president seeks revocation of each disposition as stated in the [Attachment 2] List] [Attachment 2] in July 24, 2017 is that the Defendant expressed his/her intent to confirm the other party to the disposition as such. Of the instant disposition, the disposition of the Plaintiff’s president as the other party to the disposition (attached Form 2] written in the “List 2.” should be revoked because all of the grounds for invalidation are illegal.

B. Violation of the request for disciplinary action against employees who are not teachers

Article 54 (3) of the Private School Act provides that, if a teacher of a private school falls under the grounds for dismissal and disciplinary reasons as provided in this Act, the competent authorities may request the person who has authority to appoint the teacher concerned to dismiss or discipline him. In such cases, the person who has authority to appoint the teacher in receipt of a request for dismissal or disciplinary action shall comply with it unless there are any special reasons. Therefore, the competent authorities can only request disciplinary action against the teacher in the private school and the person in the position of the teacher in question, and there is no legal basis for requesting disciplinary action against the general employee.

The part requiring disciplinary action against I, R, S, T, and U, who is not a teacher, among the dispositions in this case, is unlawful.

C) Violation of an impossible disposition

(1) [Attachment 2] Disposition 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this case in the list of '2. List' includes the portion of welfare expenses disbursed from school expenses accounts, remuneration paid to the former president, bonus paid to school staff members, redemption of business promotion expenses, and revenue measures for school expenses. However, the president of the Plaintiff president has no legal right to enforce redemption against school staff members, and has no authority to implement redemption, or to take revenue measures. This portion of disposition is not effective as compelling the president of the Plaintiff to implement legal unrealistic matters.

(2) The above disposition includes an order to take disciplinary measures against teachers and employees, and the part requiring disciplinary measures against employees is illegal. However, according to Article 54(3) of the Private School Act, the competent agency may request a person having authority for appointment of a private school teacher to dismiss or take disciplinary measures against a teacher, and disciplinary measures against a teacher of a private school shall be taken against a school foundation other than the head of the school. Accordingly, the part requesting disciplinary measures against a teacher of a private school to the president of the Plaintiff also contains an error of law that makes it impossible to perform as a matter of law.

(3) Disciplinary action on the status of a person subject to disciplinary action is premised on the status of the person subject to disciplinary action. As of July 24, 2017, V,Y, AAD, AD, AH, AH, AMF, AP, Q, BO, Q, L, CV, CH, Y, U, and R were in a state of retirement. Accordingly, the part of a disposition demanding disciplinary action on a retired school employee at the time of the disposition is unlawful that it is impossible at the time of the disposition.

2) Determination

A) The structure of the relevant legislation

(1) With respect to school education, the Framework Act on Education provides for the basic matters concerning the operation of the educational system, and the Higher Education Act provides for matters concerning higher education pursuant to Article 9 of the Framework Act on Education, and the Private School is an Act enacted to ensure the sound development of a private school by securing its independence and promoting the public nature in light of the unique characteristics of the private school. Article 3(1) of the Private School Act provides that only school juristic persons may be established (Article 4(1) of the Private School Act) and school juristic persons establishing and operating private junior colleges, etc. (Article 4(1) of the Private School Act). As such, Article 48 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 15954, Dec. 18, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the competent authorities may order the school to submit reports, inspect books and documents, etc., and to take necessary measures. Article 5 of the Higher Education Act provides that a school which conducts higher education may directly order the school to amend or suspend its school regulations or to the head of a designated school without justifiable reason.

(2) According to Article 29(1) of the former Private School Act, the accounts of a school foundation shall be divided into accounts belonging to the school foundation and accounts belonging to the school foundation. According to Article 29(5) of the same Act, the budget of accounts belonging to the school foundation shall be compiled by the head of the school, and confirmed and executed according to the procedures prescribed in each subparagraph of the same paragraph. Article 9 of the Articles of association of the university of this case provides that accounts belonging to the school shall be executed by the head of the school concerned and that accounts belonging to the school shall be executed by the chief (Article 9(3)); with respect to the appointment of private school teachers, the Private School Act provides that the appointment of teachers of the private school established and operated by the school foundation shall be made through a resolution of this society on the recommendation of the head of the school; Article 54(3) of the same Act provides that the appointment of teachers of the school foundation may be delegated to the head of the school (Article 53-2); Article 7(3) of the former Private School Act provides that the head of the school foundation who has authority to appoint teachers or disciplinary action upon recommendation.

B) Whether the part of the Plaintiff’s disposition to the other party is unlawful

According to the above provisions, the president of the Plaintiff shall be delegated by the Plaintiff corporation to take a disposition of appointment, disciplinary action, etc. for teachers, to proceed with the appointment disposition, disciplinary procedure, etc. as the appointing authority for the employees, to execute school expenses, and to exercise overall control over the affairs of the school as prescribed by school regulations. Therefore, the president of the Plaintiff may evaluate that the relevant duties are performed independently, and may be specified as one unit of activity in relation to the duties within the scope (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9317, Jun. 24, 2011). Since the other party to whom the Defendant may order correction or change of the violation of education-related Acts and subordinate statutes pursuant to Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act includes “the other party to whom the Defendant may order correction or change of the relevant duties, etc., the Defendant may be construed to have ordered the head of the school who is the executor of the said duties to be the other party to the disposition. The allegation that the Plaintiff’

C) Whether the request for disciplinary action against an employee who is not a teacher is unlawful

(1) The reason why the education-related law requires the Defendant to guide and supervise the private school is that the private school also has the obligation to contribute to the right of citizens to receive education, as long as it is incorporated into our education system. The education-related law guarantees the normal operation of school affairs under the education-related law through the Defendant’s instruction and supervision, and orders correction or change, or make it possible to take necessary measures under Article 60(2) of the Higher Education Act, thereby ensuring the minimum level of higher education conducted in the private school and promoting the loyalty of school education.

(2) Employees belonging to the university of this case constitute members of the university of this case who are not teachers (Article 59 of the university of this case) among the members of the school juristic person (Article 59 of the university of this case) and take charge of administrative affairs of the university of this case. Therefore, in order to achieve the legislative purpose of securing the minimum quality of higher education, guidance and supervision

In light of the purport of Article 60 (1) of the Higher Education Act, which provides for the correction of the violation of education-related Acts and subordinate statutes, the revision of the Act, and the fact that the Higher Education Act provides for the closure order of a school as the authority of the defendant who is the competent supervisory authority, it is reasonable to interpret that the request for disciplinary action against the general office personnel also includes the scope of ordering the ‘Correction' or the ‘Modification'

(3) On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the scope of the Defendant’s order should be limited since Article 54(3) of the Private School Act provides that “If a teacher of a private school falls under the grounds for dismissal and disciplinary reasons stipulated in this Act, the competent authorities may request the person who has the authority to appoint the teacher in question to dismiss or punish the teacher in question by stipulating that the person who has the authority to appoint the teacher in question shall be subject to dismissal or disciplinary action.” However, this appears to be based on the interpretation that in order to substantially realize Article 31(1) of the Constitution that guarantees the right to equal education of the people, and Article 31(6) of the Constitution that declares the principle of equal education as the basic principle for education, teachers must educate students independently, professionally, and neutrally, and to this end, matters concerning the minimum duty to protect teachers should be provided for in the Act that does not unfairly deprive the status of the teacher in question. In other words, the pertinent provision is one of the provisions that strongly guarantee the status of the teacher in question

It is interpreted that an individual school juristic person does not freely delegate to the articles of association and specifically restrict the person entitled to request for disciplinary punishment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the request for disciplinary punishment against an employee is excluded or the content of the order for correction or modification should be restricted within the scope of the competent agency’s order for correction or modification under Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act on the grounds that the said provision does not expressly stipulate “employee”. The plaintiffs’ assertion

D) Whether an unexecution disposition is unlawful

Article 60(2) of the Higher Education Act provides that a person in receipt of an order for correction or modification under paragraph (1) of the same Article may directly correct the act of violation or reduce the student quota, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, in cases where the person fails to comply with such order within the designated period without justifiable cause. Therefore, it is related to the assessment of the effectiveness of disciplinary action due to the retirement of an employee, the possibility of substantial recovery, etc., without justifiable cause. Therefore, it cannot be a circumstance that disputes the illegality of the order for correction or modification itself. This part of the Plaintiff president’s assertion cannot be accepted without need to further examine.

I. Whether the disposition of the Plaintiff corporation is deviates from or abused discretionary power

Considering that the grounds for the disposition of this case 2 through 8, which is the cause of the warning or heavy disciplinary action against the Plaintiff president, are recognized, and the content of the above points, the result of infringement of legal interests and interests, the legislative purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the fact that the management of school affairs was improper for a considerable period of time at the university of this case and the improper execution of school expenses accounts was conducted repeatedly, it is reasonable to request the Plaintiff president to take warning or heavy disciplinary action according to the seriousness

The plaintiff corporation's assertion about deviation and abuse of discretionary power also cannot be accepted.

j. Sub-committee

The disposition of the Plaintiff’s president (attached Form 3) is unlawful because the grounds for the disposition are not recognized or it is unlawful by abusing or abusing discretionary power. The remaining disposition against the Plaintiff’s president and the disposition against the Plaintiff’s legal entity are not recognized as unlawful grounds for the Plaintiffs’ assertion.

5. Conclusion

Among the lawsuits of this case, the part seeking revocation of each "agency Warning" related to the university of this case is unlawful and thus all is dismissed. The claims of the plaintiff corporation are dismissed without merit. Since the claims of the plaintiff president are justified within the above scope of recognition, they shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Awards and decorations by the presiding judge;

Judges Lee Jae-ho

Judges Kim Jae-jin

1) Among the instant dispositions, the part requesting redemption of KRW 14,500,000 and the accounts for school expenses that were disbursed to corporate executives among the instant dispositions, among the instant dispositions, and the part requesting redemption of KRW 15,80,000 and the accounts for school expenses that were disbursed to J and Q among the instant dispositions, and the part requesting redemption of KRW 15,80,000 and the accounts for school expenses that were disbursed to Q among the instant dispositions, and the remainder

2) The contents of each claim list (attached Form 2) are as follows: (c) the part against which the plaintiffs dispute among the contents of each claim list is divided and arranged by the defendant for each specific disposition counterpart.

3) [Attachment 2] 2. Of the list of claims, the part concerning the instant disposition 8 is omitted from the part concerning the disciplinary action against employees, on the premise that the Plaintiff president deals with the disciplinary action against “employee” while the part concerning the instant disposition was dealt with, the illegality, etc. is disputed and all disciplinary measures against the employees are also stated in the remaining part concerning the disciplinary action against the employees. Therefore, the request for disciplinary action by the relevant employees on the ground of the instant disposition 8 is also deemed to be included in the purport of the claim.

4) Meanwhile, there is a part of each of the dispositions in the instant case requiring a warning as a corrective measure related to the teachers and staff. The Defendant implemented a corrective measure against the Plaintiffs, and reported the result of the corrective measure to the Plaintiffs along with evidentiary documents within a given period from the date of notification of the inspection of actual status. The contents of the corrective measure can be divided into: (i) financial measures such as recovering the amount disbursed as school expenses accounts again; (ii) administrative measures such as the amendment of relevant regulations; (iii) measures such as heavy disciplinary action or warning against the Plaintiff president and the teachers and staff in relation to the grounds for the disposition; and (iv) measures requiring a serious disciplinary action or warning against the Plaintiff president and the teachers and staff in relation to the above matters of the corrective measure

C. It did not recognize the nature of disposition for reasons such as the same as the paragraph, and the president and school staff also use the phrase of "a warning" as "a warning."

However, it is difficult to see the meaning of the warning just because of the above circumstances. The defendant ordered the plaintiffs to report the result of the request for corrective measures in writing attached to the documents, and Article 60 (2) of the Education Act provides that the person ordered to make a change under paragraph (1) or to make a change under paragraph (1) fails to comply with the order within the designated period without justifiable grounds, so the plaintiffs are obliged to bear the burden of implementing the corrective measures.

As seen earlier, the Defendant expressed his intention to distinguish the other party of the disposition of warning and heavy disciplinary action in consideration of the personnel rights and the right to discipline. In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement in subparagraph 5-3 of the evidence No. 5-2, the Defendant requires the content of warning that the Defendant imposes a "measures on his status" through the Disciplinary Committee. In addition, it constitutes one form of warning, which applies mutatis mutandis to the disciplinary action against a teacher to whom the Private School Act applies, under the Rules on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials, etc., the punishment for a teacher is mitigated. Article 74 of the Articles of the University of this case provides that disciplinary action against a teacher shall apply mutatis mutandis to a private school, and in the case of a "agency warning against a university," Article 74 of the University of this case requires that the other party pay an additional obligation to the other party other than receiving a document stating the "agency warning", and therefore, it is also necessary for the President to issue an order to take additional corrective action against the Plaintiff or the other party to issue a warning to him.

5) It is limited to the student BV and B handled by the Plaintiff in the instant lawsuit.

6) According to the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality, the above decision is a case in which the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status added a person who is able to institute an administrative litigation against a decision of the Committee, but it is reasonable to consider the purport that the head of a school can specify the person as a single unit of activity to the

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.