[1] The case holding that the Minister of Education, Science and Technology grants preliminary authorization for the establishment of a professional law school or exclusion therefrom constitutes a disposition subject to administrative litigation

[2] The case holding that the Minister of Education, Science and Technology’s preliminary authorization for the establishment of a professional law school is not unlawful

[1] The case holding that since only a university with the preliminary authorization of a law school is granted an opportunity to obtain a principal's authorization and a university without the preliminary authorization is completely excluded from subsequent procedures, the preliminary authorization of a law school is not an act of preparation for a principal's authorization, but an act of separate independent disposition, and the Minister of Education, Science and Technology excludes a university with the preliminary authorization of a law school from the subject of the preliminary authorization, and thus constitutes a rejection disposition.

[2] The case holding that in light of the organization and activities of the Law School Education Committee to deliberate on the matters relating to authorization for establishment of a law school, the establishment and revision of examination standards, the procedure therefor, balanced consideration among regions, etc., the Minister of Education, Science and Technology's preliminary authorization for establishment of a law school is not unlawful.

[1] Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 6, 10, 11, 13, and 21 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Law Schools; Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Law Schools

1. A person who intends to obtain permission from the State or a local government;

(2) The Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Attorney Choi Ho-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 23, 2008

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In the first place, it is confirmed that the Defendant’s preliminary authorization disposition against the Plaintiff on February 4, 2008 is null and void. In the second place, the Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on February 4, 2008 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, 4-1, 2, 5, 6, 1-1, 2, 2-2, 2-3, 4-1, 4-2, 5, 5-6, 9-1 through 6, and there is no counter-proof.

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiff is a person who establishes and operates the Joseon University in Gwangju, and the defendant is a person with the authority to authorize the law school under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Law Schools in force on September 28, 2007 (hereinafter "Law School Establishment Act").

(b) Implementation process of a professional law school system;

(1) In order to provide high-quality legal services in response to the various expectations and requests of the people, the Presidential Advisory Organization, was in charge of preparing for the introduction of the law school system in order to train legal professionals with knowledge and ability to settle legal disputes professionally and efficiently based on professional ethics and values, and prepared a proposal on May 16, 2005.

(2) Based on the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools prepared by the Judicial Reform Promotion Committee, the Defendant submitted to the National Assembly the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools around October 2005 through consultation with the relevant departments and the process of gathering opinions from universities. On July 3, 2007, the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools was passed by the National Assembly on September 28, 2007.

(3) The defendant conducted two research service projects (KR-2005-04-B0017, policy research tasks 2005-designated-42) on August 2007 and September 2007, after gathering opinions from the National Court Administration, the Ministry of Justice, the Korean Bar Association, and the Korean Law Schools Association through a four-time conference of experts.

(4) Meanwhile, on October 5, 2007, the Defendant organized the Law School Education Committee to deliberate on matters relating to authorization for the establishment of a professional law school pursuant to Articles 10 and 11 of the Establishment of Law Schools Act, and commissioned 13 members, including Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4, who are law professors, as its members.

(c) Public announcement of application for authorization for establishment of professional law schools;

(1) On October 30, 2007, after deliberation by the Law School Education Committee, the Defendant issued a public notice of application for authorization of the establishment of a law school (hereinafter “instant public notice”) with the following content under Article 207-120 of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development.

4. Total admission quota;

-The total admission quota for professional law schools in 2009 shall be 2,000 persons.

5. Method of selection;

-to train excellent legal professionals and to select them in consideration of regional balance.

-The whole country shall be set up as five zones with the jurisdiction of the high court, and excellent universities shall be selected as professional law schools within each region.

Seoul, Gyeonggi-do, Incheon, Gangwon-gu Daejeon, Chungcheongnamnam-gu, Chungcheong-gu, Gyeongbuk-do, Busan, Ulsan-do, Ulsan-do, Ulsan-do, Ulsan-ju, Jeon Nam-nam, Jeonbuk-do, Jeonbuk-do, and Jeju-do, which is located in the Dongi High Court located in the main sentence.

-A regional balance may be taken into account at the time of selecting a university or college within each region, but it shall not be selected if it is found inappropriate as a result of the examination.

-The Law School (including the fixed number of admission of individual graduate schools) shall be authorized by the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development after deliberation by the Law School Education

6. Review and evaluation;

·A project shall be assessed in accordance with the standards for authorization for establishment of professional law schools prepared after deliberation by the Law School Education Committee.

-Performance evaluation shall, in principle, be based on the date of public announcement.

7. Announcement of a selected university;

-Preliminary Authorization (Notice of Examination Results of Establishment Plan): the end of January 2008

-Self-employed Persons: around September 2008

(2) On October 30, 2007, the Defendant announced the examination criteria for authorization of the establishment of a professional law school (hereinafter “the examination criteria of this case”) and introduced the preliminary authorization system to ensure that only the university which obtained the preliminary authorization at the end of January 2008 makes an investment planned in teachers, facilities, etc.. The examination criteria of this case consists of nine areas, including the objectives of education, admission process, curriculum, teachers, students, educational facilities, finance, related degree course, university competitiveness, social responsibility, etc., 66 items, and 132 items, and the number of points allocated to each area are as follows.

1. 60 6.0% of the entrance screening 16 345 34.5% of the teacher’s 195 195 19.5% of the teacher’s 105 195 19.5% of the student’s 6125 10.2% of the student’s 11102 6.5% of the student’s 555.5% of the finance 303.0% of the relevant degree course 3303.0% of the university competitiveness and social accountability 548.8% of the 661,000 % of the relevant degree course.

* Plan: 61.1%, performance: 30.9%, planning and performance concurrently: 8.0%

D. Application for authorization to establish the Plaintiff’s professional law school

On November 30, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for authorization of the establishment of a professional law school with the admission quota of 100 persons and specialized areas as cultural law. In the Gwangju metropolitan area, the Plaintiff applied for authorization of the establishment of a professional law school with the total of 41 universities nationwide, other than the Plaintiff.

(e) Standards for allocating admission quota at professional law schools;

(1) On December 14, 2007, the Defendant: (a) comprehensively taking into account the population, total production within the region (GRP) and number of cases; and (b) balanced securing of legal professionals’ emissions with respect to the fixed number of admission at the law school, the Defendant allocated 52% to the Seoul High Court jurisdiction and outside Seoul; (c) the fixed number of admission allocated to Seoul and outside Seoul within the scope of 【5%; (d) the results of the examination of fact-finding (written examination and on-site investigation) conducted by the Law School Education Committee from December 12, 2007 to January 2008; and (e) confirmed the status of application for authorization to establish the law school, such as securing teachers, and announced the final authorization plan on September 9, 2008.

(2) The Law School Education Committee set 57% of the fixed number of admission in Seoul and 43% of the fixed number of admission in Seoul and other regions, and conducted documentary examination and on-site investigation in accordance with the examination criteria in this case.

(f) Selection, etc. of preliminary law schools;

(1) The members of the Law School Education Committee assessed each university applying for authorization of establishment in accordance with the instant review criteria, and set points, and the average points and priority of the universities outside Seoul and Gwangju regions are as follows.

Omission

Omission

(2) According to the results of deliberation by the Law School Education Committee on February 4, 2008, the Defendant selected 15 universities, 10 universities, and 10 universities (120 students, 80 students, 80 students, 60 students, 60 students, and 40 students, excluding the Plaintiff in the Gwangju metropolitan region), and 25 universities and colleges as preliminary authorization. The Defendant did not separately notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the selected universities and colleges were selected as preliminary authorization universities and submitted the application for authorization of establishment based on the fixed number of admission by the university and college and the fixed number of admission, ② the abolition of the law department and the special law school, ③ the closure of the fixed number of students equivalent to the fixed number of admission by the law school, ③ the implementation of subsequent measures to secure the number of faculty members, etc., and the implementation of on-site investigations and the implementation plan for the performance of on-site surveys, etc., and failed to separately notify the Plaintiff of the scheduled revocation of preliminary authorization.

(3) On February 15, 2008, the Defendant disclosed the determination of the quota by region, the principle of selecting preliminary universities and colleges, the principle and result of the determination of the quota by university and college. Among them, the principle and result of the determination of the quota by university and college for four regional regions are as follows.

·Principle of allocation

- The evaluation results shall be based on the results of evaluation, and the admission quota shall be allocated in comprehensive consideration of the fostering of regional base universities, balance between regions, etc.

· The Jeju shall preferentially allocate balanced regional development within the region.

· The lower limit line up to nine local rankings in order to secure the quality of legal education, along with regional balance;

·Order and result of allocation

(1) The Government shall allocate 40 prescribed number of 40 persons in terms of balanced regional development to Jeju metropolitan area.

(2) Where at least 10 persons have been allocated: At least 100 persons shall be allocated for each university or college that has acquired the highest evaluation score in each region in terms of fostering central universities and colleges.

· 120 persons, respectively, shall be allocated to three universities in the highest level of Daegu, Gwangju, Busan, and Busan (Seoul, Jeonnam, and Busan) respectively.

(3) Where less than 10 persons are allocated: It shall be allocated from 80 to 60 persons, taking into account not only the total points acquired by universities but also the balance among regions in which future legal professionals discharge, etc.

· 80 persons shall be assigned in consideration of the high evaluation score in the case of the Jeonbuk-gu University in the Gwangju metropolitan area, and 60 persons shall be assigned to the next upper class.

(4) Where selection is not made: A difference between the scores at least 13 points and the scores at least 13 points is excluded from the selection because of a difference between the scores at the lowest and the scores at the next highest university among universities located in the fourth region in a local area.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Main Safety Defenses

The defendant merely notified of the selection of the university selected as the object of preliminary authorization on February 4, 2008 at the law school and did not take any measure of authorization or rejection against the application for authorization for the establishment of the law school, and the selection and notification of the above preliminary authorization are merely the preparation stage of the authorization for the establishment of the law school, which is scheduled on September 2008. Thus, it does not directly affect the plaintiff's legal status, rights and obligations. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since there is no disposition subject to administrative litigation or it cannot be deemed a disposition subject to administrative litigation.

(b) Markets:

On the other hand, an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act is a law enforcement related to a specific fact conducted by an administrative agency as the public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. In this case, only the university granted the preliminary authorization may initiate preparation work for opening the professional law school through the "public announcement of a summary of entrance screening plan", and may revise and supplement the application for establishment authorization, and a university granted the opportunity to receive the principal by undergoing a performance inspection and on-site investigation for him/her. On the other hand, a university granted the right and position to undergo follow-up procedures, which did not receive the preliminary authorization, is completely excluded from the subsequent procedures. Thus, the preliminary authorization at the professional law school of February 4, 2008 is not a preparatory action for the principal but a separate independent disposition. Furthermore, the Defendant's act of excluding the Plaintiff from the subject of the preliminary authorization at the professional law school constitutes a rejection disposition (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case").

Therefore, the defendant's defense of the principal safety is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The illegality of the organization of the Law School Education Committee

The defendant refused to recommend the members of the Law School Education Committee of Korea, which is an incorporated association, to recommend the members of the Law School Education Committee, and commissioned Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4, who are teaching staff at the Seoul, Egylology, Gyeongbuk, and Jeon Nam, who have applied for authorization of the establishment of the Law School Education Committee, as members of the Law School Education Committee. The appointment of the above professors as members of the Law School Education Committee is in violation of the provisions of Article 1

(2) The illegality of deliberation by the Law School Education Committee

Although the Law School Education Committee is not the deliberative body, its members have been exposed to the press in advance, and there was a wide range of denial and law in other organizations and activities of the members of the Law School Education Committee recommended by Nonparty 5, the chief public relations officer, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 5, and other members of the Law School Education Committee. In the duties of the members of the Law School Education Committee, a university that applied for authorization of the establishment of a law school has no choice but to have an influence on other universities, such as establishment, allocation of admission quota, deliberation criteria, etc., and deliberation on all of the members of the Law School Education Committee have no choice but to have an influence on other universities. The members of the Law School Education Committee cannot be deemed to have an implicit influence on mutual evaluation through academic studies, delays, and multiple accommodations, etc.

(3) Improperity of the instant review standard modification (e.g., infringement of trust interests)

The criteria for the examination of the establishment of a professional law school are to be prepared through a deep research by the Korea Science Promotion Foundation, etc., and the universities preparing for the establishment of a professional law school have prepared an application for the establishment of a professional law school in compliance with these criteria. On October 30, 2007, the Defendant issued the instant examination criteria and infringed on the trust interests of universities preparing for the establishment of a professional law school, including the degree of establishment and operation of a foreign language course (10 points), the rate of female professors (10 points) among professors (10 points), the average number of successful applicants (15 points), and the number of successful applicants (10 points) for the past five years, and the evaluation items of the results of structural reform (10 points) of the law school in the evaluation field of the law school for the past five years, and revised the examination criteria for the establishment of the Plaintiff and other universities to prepare for the establishment of a professional law school.

① Furthermore, the detailed evaluation items of the above female faculty ratio are the items of assessment of the original plan, and the future recruitment plan was set at full intervals, but it was changed to the items of assessment of performance up to now, and thus, it was unilaterally favorable to the National University or Women’s University which additionally received the allocation of the fixed number of female professors according to the “Plan for Increase in the Number of Female Professors” in the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. ② The detailed evaluation items of the degree of establishment and operation of foreign language courses were changed to 20 courses at the original five courses, not only in our reality, but also in our case, the number of courses increased according to the assertion of the members of the Law School Education Committee belonging to a specific university. ③ The evaluation items of the performance of the legal professionals were more favorable to the National Assembly members who have passed the 18th National Assembly election, and Non-party 5 asserted that the results of establishment and operation of the 2nd National University were more favorable to the two preceding five-year National University Assembly members, and that the two preceding five-year National University's results should have been combined with the first five-year National University.

(4) Illegal in the process of establishing and amending the instant review criteria

Article 21 of the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools provides that when establishing and amending important standards for the establishment of law schools, opinions of the Minister of Court Administration, the Minister of Justice, the President of Korean Bar Association, and the President of Korean Law Schools shall be heard. The defendant did not undergo the above procedures for gathering opinions in newly adding or amending the standards for female professors' ratio, the operation of foreign language courses, the number and ratio of judicial successful candidates, the competitiveness of universities

(5) Violation of the duty of balanced consideration between regions

In granting authorization for the establishment of professional law schools, regional balance should be taken into account. The defendant neglected the population ratio, legal demand ratio, industrial productivity contribution ratio, etc., which are factors to be considered for regional balance. compared to Gwangju and South Korea, the population, legal demand, industrial productivity ratio, etc. were assigned to the Jeonbuk-do, and 140 students were assigned to the Jeonbuk-nam-do, whereas only 120 students were assigned to the Jeon Nam-nam-do, and the defendant did not take into account regional balance by granting preliminary authorization to the Jeju-Nam-do, which is much lower than that of the plaintiff.

(6) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful, thus seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition, and seek preliminary revocation of the instant disposition.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of arguments as to the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 8, Eul evidence 1 to 4-1, 2, 5, 6, 7, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, 10, 19, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 9-1 through 6, Eul evidence 10, 11, 12, Eul evidence 15-1 through 4, Eul evidence 17-1 through 15, and Eul evidence 17-1 through 15, and there is no counter-proof.

(1) Reporting, etc. on grounds for exclusion of members from law professors

(A) On December 207, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4, a member of the Law School Education Committee, filed a report on the grounds for exclusion of a university in which they were employed, respectively, and subsequently, did not participate in the evaluation of a university to which they belong in the examination and evaluation of a total of 41 universities, which filed an application for authorization to establish a law school.

(B) Nonparty 1, a chairman and a member of the Law School Education Committee, served as the president of the Law School Education Committee and the members of the Law School Reform Promotion Committee, and Nonparty 2, a member of the non-governmental organization, served as the members of the Law School Reform Promotion Committee. Nonparty 3 served as the members of the Law School Reform Promotion Committee, and Nonparty 4 served as the former president of the Law School in South Korea, the auditor of the Korean Law School and the expert members of the Law Reform Promotion Committee.

(2) Research, gathering of opinions, deliberation process, etc. about the examination criteria for authorization of establishment of professional law schools

(A) As seen earlier, two research projects were conducted with the Defendant’s financial support. Among them, the first research project was conducted by 5 May 2005 through 8, 2005, and the second research project was submitted with the title “the first research project for the establishment of law school and the authorization standard” (hereinafter “the first research project report”). The second research project was conducted by the Korea Research Foundation on December 2005 through 5, 2006 with the title “the second research project for the establishment of law school” (hereinafter “the second research report”).

In addition, the first research report states that the alternative or opinion presented in the research is not an official opinion of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, but an opinion of the researcher, and the second research report states that the second research report does not have any binding or normative power as materials for deliberation that can be used by the Law School Education Committee.

(B) The defendant sent the second research report to the National Court Administration, the Ministry of Justice, the Korean Bar Association, and the Korean Law Schools Association on August 2007 and September 2007, and collected opinions on the examination criteria and evaluation indices for the establishment of professional law schools.

(C) Between October 5, 2007 and January 26, 2008, the Law School Education Committee held meetings 15 times to deliberate on the establishment of professional law schools, the examination criteria for authorization of establishment of professional law schools, the selection of each professional law school and the allocation of the prescribed number of students. The main results of deliberation are as follows.

① At the third meeting on October 16, 2007, there was a broad range of discussions about the allocation of the evaluation field and detailed evaluation items and the composition of the items. At the third meeting, the opinion was presented that it is necessary to establish a foreign language course in order to give special opportunities rather than opening a foreign language course, to maintain existing law colleges, to evaluate the number of subjects, etc., to prepare for opening the legal market, and to train international competitiveness, and to strengthen the number of subjects. In relation to the ratio of female professors, the opinion was presented that it is necessary to increase the ratio of female professors by 30% and the number of points assigned to the Ministry of Education to increase the ratio of female professors by 10 points. In relation to the above evaluation items, there was a need to reflect the current status and performance in the evaluation index in the college competitiveness index. After evaluating the above evaluation items by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Education has proposed the final determination by the legal education committee, and the opinion of the successful applicants in the examination and the result of the judicial examination should be presented.

② At the fourth meeting of October 18, 2007, the number of successful applicants in the judicial examination was adopted as a new evaluation index, and a plan was discussed to reflect the number of successful applicants in the judicial examination as a new evaluation index within the limit of 30 points, and a detailed review on the criteria for authorization of establishment was decided to organize and discuss a subcommittee with four members of the Law School Education Committee. There was a variety of discussions about the evaluation evaluation zone including five areas under the jurisdiction of the high court, and most of five areas under the jurisdiction of the high court were supported by the committee members. The grounds for the examination are that the quality guarantee of the law school and balanced regional development should be considered at the same time, but the quality of the law school

③ On October 22, 2007, at the fifth meeting of October 25, 2007, the subcommittee decided on October 22, 2007 through October 23, 2007, to include the results of legal professionals’ emission determined by the subcommittee as detailed evaluation items of the number of successful applicants by school (15 points) and the ratio of successful applicants by law school (10 points) in the field of student’s evaluation. In relation to university competitiveness and social responsibility, some members were presented with opinion that it is relevant to the examination criteria for the establishment of professional law schools and that it is reasonable to revise the expression method of the index in the direction of emphasizing the ethical responsibility and social responsibility of the university.

④ At the sixth meeting of October 27, 2007, the overall review was conducted on the competitiveness of universities and the social responsibility, etc. In relation to the above, the number of points allocated was adjusted from 50 to 48, and the name of the detailed items for assessment was revised.

⑤ At the seventh conference dated 29 October 2007, the basic direction for the selection of each professional law school was determined for each professional law school.

(6) At the 8th meeting on November 6, 2007, the 9th meeting on November 15, 2007, and the 10th meeting on November 22, 2007, deliberation was conducted on the plan for examination on authorization of establishment of professional law schools, such as documentary examination, field investigation, etc.

7) At the 13th session of December 13, 2007, the Seoul High Court set the principle of allocating the fixed number of admission to the extent that the ratio of 48% can be adjusted within the range of 【5% between the two regions according to the result of the examination on whether the installation of the above fixed number of admission is authorized, by comprehensively taking into account the regional conditions such as population, the number of population in the region, the number of cases, and the balance of legal professionals' emissions, etc.

(8) At the 15th meeting, which was held on January 26, 2008 through January 28, 2008, the Seoul High Court's jurisdiction and the fourth and fourth regions (57%: 43%) have been determined, and the number of preliminary university and college selected by each region was determined and reported to the Defendant on January 28, 2008.

(3) Questions related to the selection of professional law schools

(A) On January 31, 2007, Nonparty 5, the chief public relations officer of the 18th National Assembly, declared a horse in North Korea in the election of the National Assembly members of the 18th National Assembly, had participated in the temporary TF (TFC) Team related to the law school at the time he/she works for the Cheongdaedae, and had sexual intercourse with the press personnel assigned as the chief public relations officer in the process of selecting the members of the Law School Education Committee, and had expressed that the lusium in North Korea, which was the chief public relations officer of the 18th National Assembly, had led to the North Yong-Nam among the local private private sector, and had been able to reflect the average number of successful candidates for the judicial examination in the last five years and the number of successful graduates compared to the number of successful graduates of the law school in the last five years, and this standard has been determined and announced in the preliminary authorization of the original lusium.

(B) On January 27, 2007, Nonparty 5 requested the production of an election campaign material stating the phrase “ Nonparty 5, who opened a law school in the luminous Team,” on the front of January 27, 2007, a day before the results of the deliberation on the selection of a university by the Law School Education Committee for preliminary authorization, and on the front of that page, Nonparty 5 requested the production of an election campaign material stating “The press material from the Hysan area included the press personnel as a member of the Law School Education Committee, thereby contributing to attracting a

(C) Accordingly, the strike related to the selection of professional law schools has spread to political rights.

(4) Criteria for examination of this case

(A) Regarding the degree of opening and operating a foreign language course

① The Defendant included the level of opening and operating a foreign language course (10 points) in the assessment items for securing major selection subjects (50 points) among the assessment items of the instant standard curriculum (345 points), as detailed assessment items.

② Although the first and second research reports do not include items to be assessed on opening foreign language lectures, the National Court Administration, at the time of collecting the defendant's opinions about the National Court Administration, pointed out that there is not enough evaluation indices to induce the defendant to train international law lawyers with respect to the examination criteria, and therefore, it is necessary to employ teaching staff to train international law professionals, to strengthen the index for establishing the curriculum, and to additionally add the index for securing foreign language lectures, and to establish the curriculum of foreign language lectures. In the expert conference held four times, it was pointed out that the law school is also a process to train specialized lawyers who can cope with international environments, so it is necessary to measure the foreign language skills of students, select their major subjects, and open foreign language lectures.

(B) Regarding the ratio of female professors

① The Defendant included the ratio of female professors among the items to be assessed of diversity (20 points) of faculty members (195 points) among the items to be assessed, as detailed items to be assessed, among the items to be assessed by the faculty members (20 points) of the instant review standard. The Defendant allocated the results of employment up to three years and the plan for employment up to three years as five points each.

② The second research report presented the standard of female faculty ratio among faculty members as part of the criteria for diversity of faculty members, and it was required to evaluate the employment plan as full marks of 10 years.

③ However, in the process of the review by the Expert Council and the review by the Law School Education Committee, the purpose of the above item is to enhance the development and utilization of high-class female human resources by enhancing gender equality in the appointment of faculty members of universities, and to increase the participation of female professors in the rate and decision-making process of female professors in universities. In the course of evaluating only future employment plans, there is a need for universities to additionally employ female professors because of the higher ratio of female professors. Each university has formulated a gender equality plan every three years in accordance with the university gender equality action plan promoted by the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development from 2004, and has the results submitted every year (in the case of national or public representatives, autonomous matters). Therefore, it is necessary to reflect the degree of implementation of the gender equality plan in the past, not only the plan evaluation but also the implementation of performance evaluation.

④ In the case of a law school affiliated with a four-year general university nationwide in 2006, the ratio of female professors among full-time teachers was 7% average for national teams and 5.2% average for private teams, and the ratio of securing female professors was somewhat higher than that of national private teams.

(C) Concerning the discharge of legal professionals

① During the evaluation field of students (125 points), the Defendant included the average number of successful examinees (15 points) who passed the judicial examination for the last five years and the number of successful examinees (10 points) for the last five years as detailed evaluation items in the evaluation items.

② The first research report needs to be considered as an evaluation factor not only the external and objective educational environment but also the educational ability appearing as a result of education in order to evaluate the educational ability in the evaluation area of the legal professionals' emission performance. One of the educational results is the emission performance, so it is necessary to consider it as an evaluation factor.

③ The Plaintiff and the luminous Team had 25 or less judicial successful candidates during the last five years. Accordingly, according to the instant review criteria, the Plaintiff and the luminous Team had 3 points, each of the basic points.

(D) Regarding university competitiveness and social responsibility

① The examination criteria of this case include the field of evaluation of university competitiveness and social accountability (48 points), and include five evaluation items and 11 detailed evaluation items as follows.

9.1.2 of university competitiveness and social accountability (48 points) of university 9.1 of university promotion (10) of university 9.1.2 of university 59.2 of university 10.3 of college 109.3 higher education (10) of college 10.3 of college 10.3 of college 10 of college 10.3 of college 10 of college 10.3 of college 10 of college 10 of college 10.3 of college 10 of college 10 of college 10.3 college 1 of college 1 of college 39.3 of the international goal of internationalization (10) is properly reflected in the mid- to long-term development plan of university 39.3.2 of international organization exclusively responsible for internationalization and the number of workers' aptitude of the research 39.3.3.4 of research 39.4 of internationalization of research 19.4 research ethics (10.4.59.4.10 of research ethics 19.45.58 of social 15.4.5 of research 95.4.5.5.5.5.1)

② Of the evaluation items of “the results of university structural reform” in the field of evaluating “university competitiveness and social responsibilities,” the detailed evaluation items of “the results of university structural reform” are five points. The evaluation index provides for five points in cases where a university is selected as a university merged between national universities and is selected as a university eligible for government funding, five points in cases where a university is selected as a leading university for structural reform due to the reduction in the number of regular personnel, and five points in cases where a university is selected as a university eligible for annual support, and three points in cases where a university is selected as a university eligible for annual support.

③ The number of national teams obtained five points out of the full scores of the results of the structural reform of universities is six. The five universities selected as leading universities for structural reform and obtained five points out of the full scores, among which nine universities are private teams.

(5) Relation to maintaining balance among regions

According to the statistical data of the Statistics Korea in 2005, the number of population in Gwangju and South Korea is 3,228,818 and the number of population in North Korea is 1,778,879.

(d) Markets:

(1) Determination of illegality of the organization of the Law School Education Committee

(A) Articles 10 and 11 of the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools stipulate that a law school shall have a law school register consisting of 13 members to deliberate on matters relating to a law school, and stipulate that four of 13 members shall be commissioned as law professors or associate professors. Meanwhile, Article 13 of the same Act provides for the grounds for exclusion from participating in the relevant deliberation where a member himself/herself or his/her spouse is in office in a school foundation that establishes and operates a university or college subject to deliberation.

(B) However, the above provision does not provide that a person who serves at a university which is subject to deliberation of the Law School Education Committee shall not be a member, and shall not participate in the relevant deliberation only when the member himself/herself is working at the university which is subject to deliberation. The purpose of the provision is to ensure objectivity and fairness of deliberation by preventing a member from participating in the relevant deliberation if he/she has a certain interest with the university subject to deliberation. It cannot be said that there is any error in not excluding the deliberation from other universities. Article 11(3) of the Law School Establishment Act provides that four of the members of the Law School Education Committee shall be commissioned by the defendant without recommendation from the Minister of Justice and the President of the Korean Bar Association, and there is no reason to believe that the defendant is not subject to recommendation from the Korean Law School Education Committee, and the defendant shall not be subject to restriction from the Korean Law School Education Committee, and the defendant shall not be deemed to have participated in the examination of the law school committee, which is the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the non-party 1 and the non-party 4.

(2) Determination of illegality of the deliberation by the Law School Education Committee

However, as seen earlier, Nonparty 5 announced that the results of deliberation by the Law School Education Committee have contributed to obtaining preliminary authorization from the law school by recommending the persons who have participated in the 18th National Assembly election as the member of the Law School Education Committee and claiming the criteria for examination favorable to the 2nd class. However, in light of the fact that the results of deliberation by the Law School Education Committee have been used for the production of the election campaign materials before the report to the Defendant, the members of the Law School Education Committee may raise suspicion that they have failed to perform their duties. However, such suspicion alone is insufficient to deem that the deliberation process by the Law School Education Committee is too unfair and illegal, and otherwise, it is insufficient to deem that the deliberation process by the Law School Education Committee is too unfair, and there is no evidence to support that the members of the Law School Education Committee has affected the relative evaluation of the relevant university by having given preferential treatment to or participating in the deliberation by other universities which are in competition with the members through academic studies, delays, and multiple dormitoriess, etc.

(3) Determination as to whether trust interests have been infringed due to changes in review criteria

The first and second research reports were submitted to the defendant by the defendant's financial support, and the second research reports were submitted to the defendant. Each of the above research reports is a draft which can be used as basic data to determine whether the Law School Education Committee is established at a law school, and it is merely a draft of opinion or policy proposal of the researcher, and does not have binding power or normative power since it does not have any opinion. Furthermore, there was no fact that the defendant officially expressed the contents of the above research reports as his own opinion. Accordingly, even if the plaintiff trusted the second research report submitted by the Korea Research Foundation after research and prepared an application for authorization to establish a law school, it is not evaluated as worth protecting the plaintiff's trust. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(4) Determination of illegality in establishing and amending the examination criteria of this case

(A) Article 21 of the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools provides that where the Minister of Education, Science and Technology intends to establish and revise important standards for the establishment of law schools, such as teachers, facilities, and curriculum, he/she shall hear the opinions of the Minister of Court Administration, the Minister of Justice, the President of the Korean Bar Association, and the President of the Korean Law School. Article 10 Subparag. 4 of the same Act provides for the detailed standards

(B) As seen earlier, on August 2007 and September 29, 2007, the Defendant collected opinions from the National Court Administration, the Ministry of Justice, the Korean Bar Association, and the Korean Law Schools Association by requesting the submission of the second research report to the opinion within the criteria for the examination of the establishment of professional law schools. Unlike the initial criteria for the examination, the examination of this case added or changed the content of female professors’ rate, foreign language lecture opening, operation of judicial examination and administration, judicial examination and administration, university competitiveness and social accountability, etc. Unlike the initial criteria for the examination, the additional or changed contents were neither presented in the above procedures for collecting opinions, nor presented the opinion seven times from October 5, 2007 to October 29, 2007 through the examination process of the Law School Education Committee, and the opinion of the Korean Bar Association was sufficiently examined and exchanged, and the opinion of the Korean Court Administration or the Korean Bar Association was finally reviewed with the consent of a majority of the incumbent members, and thus, the new contents of the examination procedure or amendment procedure were not unlawful.

(5) Determination of illegality of each item of the review criteria of this case

(A) The premise for the determination

Part III of the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools provides for the establishment standards of law schools under Articles 16 (School Teachers, etc.), 17 (Physical Standards), 18 (Degree Courses and Term of School), 19 (Credits), and 20 (Curriculum) of the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools. Article 6 (2) of the same Act provides that the detailed standards necessary for authorization of establishment shall be determined by the Minister of Education and Human Resources. Thus, the defendant's determination of detailed standards for assessment under the procedures (such as the procedure for gathering opinions, the procedure for deliberation of Law School Education Committee, and the procedure for resolution) prescribed by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes within the scope of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools, shall belong to the defendant's discretion. Thus, the defendant's professional and technical judgment on the adoption of the detailed standards for assessment shall be respected. However, if the detailed standards for assessment violate the relevant

(B) According to the provision on the examination of the university and college, if the plaintiff's results of the examination of the university and college's 5th anniversary of the total number of university and college's establishment and operation of the university and the 5th anniversary of the total number of university and college's 5th anniversary of its initial evaluation standards, such items were added differently from the original examination guidelines, or the above items changed were presented in the process of collecting opinions on the relevant organizations, or were included in the examination guidelines for the first and second research reports on the degree of establishment and operation of foreign language courses, which were not presented as the evaluation items, but were added to the examination guidelines for the first and second research activities of the National University's 5th anniversary of its importance in the process of collecting opinions on the National University's 6th anniversary of its initial evaluation standards. However, it is difficult to view that there were many social factors of the National University's 5th anniversary of its initial evaluation guidelines for the establishment and operation of the university's 5th new research school's 5th evaluation guidelines.

(6) Determination as to whether a regional breach of the duty to take account of balance among regions

(A) Articles 120(2) and 122 of the Constitution provide for the State’s obligations with respect to balanced development of the land, and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools provides that the Defendant shall consider balance between regions in order to train excellent human resources necessary for the development of local universities and colleges and regional development in relation to authorization for the establishment of law schools.

Meanwhile, Article 1 of the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools provides that "the purpose of this Act is to train excellent legal professionals by prescribing matters concerning the establishment, operation, education, etc. of law schools." Article 2 of the same Act provides that "The educational ideology of law schools is to train law professionals who are equipped with abundant education, deep understanding of humans and society, and values oriented on freedom, equality and justice in order to provide high-quality legal services in response to the various expectations and requests of the people." Article 6 (1) of the same Act provides that "The Minister of Education, Science and Technology may authorize law schools in cases where there is an application for authorization for the establishment of law schools under Article 5 (2) in consideration of the goals of education to achieve educational ideology under Article 2, the feasibility of curriculum, and the fulfillment of standards for establishment."

(B) In full view of the above relevant laws and regulations, the Defendant’s authorization of the establishment of a law school shall, in principle, be based on objective and reasonable evaluation of the educational capacity of the university to secure the excellent legal professionals, which is the purpose of introducing the law school system. However, it shall be interpreted that the balance between the metropolitan area, non-metropolitan area, and non-metropolitan area should be considered. The principle of selecting universities with excellent educational capacity and the principle of regional balance should be applied to the extent consistent with each other.

(C) As seen earlier, the Defendant’s public announcement of the instant case is based on the principle of examination: ① to select high-level law schools with a view to fostering excellent legal professionals; ② to select high-level schools with a nationwide unit of high law schools as universities within each region; ③ to consider regional balance at the time of the selection of universities within each region; however, the Law School Education Committee determines that it is inappropriate as a result of the examination. On December 13, 2007, it is reasonable to determine the distribution rate between the Seoul High School’s 10% and the Seoul High School’s 20% of the total number of admission quota, rather than the Seoul High School’s 20% of the total number of admission quota, and the Seoul High School’s 20% of the total number of admission quota, which is located within the Seoul High School and the Seoul High School’s 20% of the total number of admission quota, rather than the Seoul High School’s 20% of the total number of admission quota.

(7) Sub-committee

Ultimately, we cannot accept all the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)