The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the effect of the report on the appointment of the principal of the school, the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, and recognized that the approval of the competent agency on the grounds of restriction on the appointment of the principal of the school required under the proviso of Article 54-3(3) of the Private School Act is a kind of exercise of management and supervision right to enhance transparency and public nature in the exceptional operation by the chief of the school relative. Thus, if the appointment and dismissal of the school is made within seven days, the meaning of the “report on the appointment of a principal” under Article 54(1) of the Private School Act, which provides that the report shall be made within seven days, and if the Plaintiff appointed the Plaintiff’s children as the principal of the school and reported it to the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant obtained the approval from the competent

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant statutes and legal principles, the above determination by the court below is justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the legal nature of the appointment of school principal

2. As to the grounds for the refund of subsidies, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s application for subsidies for financial deficiencies (hereinafter “subsidies”) by including D which cannot be appointed as the principal due to the grounds for restriction on the appointment of the principal of the school and then the receipt thereof constitutes either “when false facts have been discovered in the application for subsidies” (Article 9(2) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Financial Support for Private Schools (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) or “when the subsidy was received in an unjust manner” (Article 6) or “when the subsidy was received in an unjust manner).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant statutes and legal principles, the above determination by the court below is justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.