1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that "27,725,879 won" of 19 pages 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "27,725,879,00 won" among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance. The ground for the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff's new assertion to the following. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The summary of the Plaintiff’s argument that the amount of additional decision-making by this court is that the Defendant calculated KRW 38,151,451,000 based on the Plaintiff’s mandatory recovery amount much higher than the above adjusted amount, even though the Defendant adjusted the Plaintiff’s mandatory recovery amount to KRW 27,725,879,879,000, based on the Plaintiff’s mandatory recovery amount was in violation of the good faith principle.

Judgment

In full view of the purport of the arguments stated in Gap evidence 4, 11, 12, and 6 evidence 2, the defendant ordered the plaintiff 45,70,88,000 won on May 19, 2004 to take measures for recovery or preservation of 31,830,059,00 won (=30,737,096,000 won for illegal embezzlement and dormitory 123,130,000 won for foreign students and dormitory 63,00,000 won for 63,00,000,000 won for profit 207,000 won for individual embezzlement and 63,00,000 won for 63,00,000 won for 730,000 won for 7,000 won for individual embezzlement and 206,306,305,000 won for 7,000 won for individual embezzlement and 5,005 won for 306,306,0000 won for separate or more