2013A. 30479 Nullification of a revocation disposition for admission

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm LLC (LLC, Attorneys Yu Nam-nam, and Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

School juristic person* University*

Law Firm Han-chul, Attorney Jeong Sung-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant

June 26, 2013

July 19, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On January 15, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the revocation of admission made against the Plaintiff is null and void.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a school foundation operating a university (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant university"), and the plaintiff is a student who entered the defendant university in 2010 as "other overseas Koreans" in the "Special Screening for Overseas Koreans and Foreign Residents" (hereinafter referred to as the "the screening of this case") *****.

B. Regarding the instant screening, the Plaintiff’s mother B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 10 million for the crime of interference with business on November 14, 2012 ****** the Seoul Central District Court 2012 ***** the relevant judgment becomes final and conclusive. The criminal facts of the instant case fall short of the three-year semesters of middle school and the two-year semesters of high school in the qualification for support of the instant screening, and the Plaintiff was in China********* * the principal of a school * * the Plaintiff completed the three-year course of the said middle school and the high school course at the said school and graduated from the said school on August 6, 209.

The plaintiff passed by submitting an application for admission to the name with attached documents to the plaintiff and thereby interfered with the recruitment of new students of this case by the president of the defendant university through fraudulent means.

C. On July 16, 2012, the president of the Defendant University submitted a false document, etc. to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office and received notification from the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office that prosecuted B on the charge of illegal admission. On September 4, 2012, the president of the Defendant University started the procedure of notification to B of the above notification and requesting the Plaintiff to submit a explanatory note. On January 15, 2010, the president of the Defendant University decided the cancellation disposition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter "the instant disposition").

D. The recruitment outline of the instant screening includes the following:

03.Assistance may be provided only to those who are graduates from high school eligible for assistance (scheduled) or those who are recognized as having equivalent or higher academic background and meet the following qualification requirements:

Matters concerning the awareness of examination students;

6. All kinds of misconducts during admission process shall be treated as those who have failed to pass the admission process, and if it is confirmed that they have passed the admission process by improper means, such as the above or alteration of the documents submitted, they shall be revoked even after admission.

7. He/she shall revoke his/her success or admission, if the grounds for disqualification, such as the eligibility for application, are verified, prior to or after admission.

9. If the descriptions of an application for admission or a document to be submitted (including translations) are found to be false or pass by other improper means, the pass shall be revoked, and even a student in school is found to have been admitted by improper means, the permission for admission shall be revoked;

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, 9, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, and 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff owned the qualification for graduation from a high school, and ② met the qualification for application for other overseas Koreans at the time of admission, ③ passed the Defendant University through a separate examination, and ④ did not participate in the submission of documents. Considering these circumstances, the instant disposition is deemed unlawful and invalid as it considerably deviates from and abused discretion.

In addition, the defendant did not give the plaintiff or his parents an opportunity to state their opinions prior to the disposition of this case (the defendant asserts that he did not notify the specific reasons and grounds for the disposition). This is contrary to the principle of due process of law under the Constitution, so even in this point, the disposition of this case is null and void.

3. Determination

A. (1) If the applicants fall short of the applicants' qualifications for admission or submit documents (including delegation documents) as one of the matters related to the recruitment of new students of universities (1) and if such facts are subsequently confirmed, unlawful acts here refer to all unlawful acts concerning the examination which harm the fairness of entrance examinations or harm them, and if such unlawful acts do not affect the passing of the examination, they shall be deemed invalid. In light of the legislative spirit and purport of Article 34 of the Higher Education Act, Articles 31 and 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the purport of the above lecture for the achievement of fairness and objectivity at the time of entrance examinations, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da17760 decided on June 1, 200, 2000). In light of the above legal principles, if the applicants were found to have failed to pass the examination, they shall not be deemed to have passed the examination, and thus, they shall be deemed to have passed the examination without passing the examination, and thus, they shall be deemed to have passed the examination.

7. (See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da23817, May 13, 199). (4) In the instant case, even if the Plaintiff acknowledged various circumstances cited by the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da23817, Apr. 1, 199). In full view of the records in Article 98(1)9 and Article 98(1)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, “the academic background equal to or higher than the high school graduates” of the instant screening course shall be based on the number of school years, 12 years, and 24 years, and where the number of school years falls short of 12 years, the Defendant University Review Committee determines whether to recognize the Plaintiff’s academic background. In the instant case, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff did not have any dispute between the parties on the completion of the three-year curriculum, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s allegation that there was an unlawful reason for the Plaintiff’s submission of qualifications for university admission examination, etc.

B. Whether procedural defects are procedural defects

According to the above facts of recognition, on September 4, 2012, the dean of the defendant university requested the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office to explain about the notification. According to Eul's evidence No. 1, Eul can be acknowledged that Eul submitted a report to the president of the defendant's University on September 14, 2012. In light of this, it is difficult to deem that the defendant did not give the plaintiff or his parent an opportunity to vindicate the disposition of this case (it is difficult to see that the defendant did not notify specific reasons and grounds for the disposition in light of the statement No. 1).

On the other hand, there is no ground to view that the defendant is obliged to provide the plaintiff or his parent with an opportunity to state his opinion more than that recognized above prior to the disposition of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion about this

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Kim Young-young

Judges Kim Gin-jin