1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates Cmiddle Schools and D High Schools located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu.

B. On August 1, 2006, the Plaintiff appointed B as the principal of D High School, and on August 1, 2010, the four-year term of office expired, appointed B as the principal of D High School.

C. On August 1, 2014, the term of office of the principal of the above high school B terminated, the Plaintiff appointed B as the principal of the C Middle School, and on August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the appointment of the principal to the Defendant pursuant to Article 54(1) of the Private School Act.

On August 13, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff on the rejection of the report on appointment of the Cmiddle School principal for the following reasons:

(1) The Ministry of Government Legislation and the Ministry of Government Legislation’s position in the Ministry of Education to interpret the relevant provisions of Article 53(3)2 of the Private School Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Ministry of Education also interpret that, in interpreting the above Acts and subordinate statutes in respect of the interpretation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, middle and high schools in the same school juristic person can serve as the principal for eight years in total (8) years in the interpretation of the term of office of the head of the same school (which is grounds for recognition), there is no dispute over the interpretation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments by the Ministry of Education.

2. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the proviso of Article 53(3) of the Private School Act comprehensively provides for “middle school” as an “middle school” is merely an expression of various schools included in the elementary and secondary schools instead of daily heating, and there is no ground to view that the proviso of Article 53(3) of the Private School Act also intends

The Public Educational Officials Act has a open recruitment system which is not included in the number of middle-standing teachers.

The Constitutional Court has determined that the appointment of a school operated by the same school foundation shall not be restricted.