The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates Chigh Schools in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On March 6, 1966, the above schools were opened to D Schools, and the school name was changed to C High Schools on March 2, 1981; March 2, 1992; October 2, 1996; October 15; October 2001; and around 2009, the school name was changed to C High Schools.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant school”). B. without distinguishing the name of the school.

On November 17, 2008, with the consent of four of the eight directors, the Plaintiff applied for the appointment of the principal of this case by the J, the senior secretary of the Plaintiff I, on December 1, 2008. The Defendant approved the appointment of the principal of this case on January 6, 2009.

(C) The Plaintiff applied for the approval of the appointment of the principal of the instant case to the Defendant with the consent of at least 2/3 of the fixed number of directors at the time of expiration of the term of office of the J, and the Defendant approved the appointment of the principal of the instant case on January 4, 2013. The J served as the principal of the instant case for the term of office “from January 6, 2009 to January 5, 2013.”

On January 28, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to recover the relevant financial deficiencies (hereinafter “disposition to recover the instant financial deficiencies”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 157,134,000 in total labor cost from J from 2009 to 201 as a financial deficiencies subsidy even though the J was the spouse of a lineal descendant of the president of the school foundation, and the approval of the appointment of the principal of the instant school was null and void due to lack of the requirements, and thus, the Defendant revoked it ex officio in the sense of confirming the invalidity of the approval of the appointment of the principal of the instant school on January 30, 2013.

(hereinafter “Revocation of Approval for Appointment of Principal of this case”). (e)

On May 14, 2013, the Plaintiff issued to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission the collection of the financial defective subsidy of this case and revoked the appointment of the principal.