1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. C obtained permission for incorporation on August 10, 1979 under the name of “Foundation E” as the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 97, and changed to the name as of May 20, 198, and the permission for incorporation was revoked on May 25, 2001.

B. On June 9, 200, Defendant A, a representative director, reported “D” to a knowledge resource development-related lifelong educational establishment.

C. Defendant B as the wife of Defendant A, served as the president of the above “D” and served as the F’s auditor.

D “D” was subject to an administrative disposition for one month of the suspension of the curriculum due to the violation of the curriculum of bedclothes, etc. which was not reported by the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Education on July 15, 201.

E. C is written as the basis for the Framework Act on Qualifications (Act No. 9190) and the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Qualifications issued to G and Plaintiff H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, Q, S, T, U,V, and W.

F. Article 17(1) of the Framework Act on Qualifications (wholly amended by Act No. 8390, Apr. 27, 2007) provides that any corporation, organization, or individual other than the State may establish a private qualification, and manage and operate it, unless the law is a field that is not a field that is restricted by the law. Article 17(1) of the Framework Act on Qualifications provides that any person may establish, manage, and operate the private qualification, and subparagraph

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 5, 11, 37, 39, 40, 42 through 45, 53, 54 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The key points of the plaintiffs' assertion were as follows, and they had their deceptioned.

C is an illegal organization whose permission for establishment is revoked, and the certificate of specialized bedclothes issued by the Defendants is not only issued by the institution whose permission for establishment is revoked, but also an illegal qualification whose issuance of a private qualification certificate is restricted under the Framework Act on Qualifications.

Nevertheless, the Defendants are legitimate institutions C.