1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts and the part which the plaintiff and the defendant alleged to be emphasized at the trial of the court of first instance or additionally claimed, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

[Supplementary part] The three pages 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "43 cases".

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the 9th page "university" is regarded as "private university".

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the 15th parallel 4th parallel 15th parallel 4th parallel 1th parallel 17th parallel 17th parallel 17th parallel 18th parallel 4th parallel 17th parallel 17th parallel 17th parallel 18th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 19th parallel

8) The Seoul Administrative Court’s order 2016Guhap62320 Decided September 29, 2017 stated “an annual disposition 9” as “an order issued in the judgment. However, it is evident that it is a clerical error of “an annual 22 disposition” in light of the respective contents indicated in the Disposition No. 3-Ma and (h) as well as the Attached Audit and Inspection Report No. 19, 22. On the fifth and fifth of the judgment of the first instance, “the appeal was dismissed and confirmed as it is,” the Defendant filed an appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2018Du49635, but the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the said appellate court became final and conclusive as it is.” On the 9th judgment of the first instance, “P 211mm2 and Q 126m2” in the judgment of the first instance, “an additional 31m2,000 square meters and Q 126m2,000” in the judgment of the first instance.

A. With respect to the part concerning employees in relation to the defendant's 1 position position-based measures, the provision of this case was legally enacted in accordance with delegation of relevant statutes, such as Article 5 of the Higher Education Act and Article 48 of the Private School Act. Article 19 of the provision of this case provides an explicit ground for demanding measures to status of employees belonging to an agency subject to audit, and the defendant is limited to private school teachers.