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.

On February 4, 2008, the Defendant confirmed that the preliminary authorization disposition against the non-party Namnam University, Jeonnam University, Jeonbuk University, Jeju University, and the original school juristic person is null and void. In addition, the Defendant’s preliminary authorization disposition on February 4, 2008 against the non-party Namnam University, Jeonnam University, Jeonbuk University, Jeju University, and the original school juristic person 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 law school in accordance with Articles 10 and 11 of the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools. Nonparty 1, a law professor, Nonparty 2 (Seoul Law School Professors), Nonparty 3 (Seoul Law School Professors), and Nonparty 4 (Seoul Law School Professors), etc. were commissioned as 13 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.

-An inter-regional balance may be considered even when the university is authorized to be established in 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 established 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 fields as cultural law. In the Gwangju metropolitan area, the Plaintiff applied for authorization of establishment of a professional law school with the admission quota of 150 persons and specialized fields as public interest human rights law, ② the pre-North Korean University located in the Jeonbuk (hereinafter referred to as the “former North Korean University”) as the admission quota of 100 persons and 100 persons and the specialized fields, ③ the number of admission quota of 80 persons and 30 persons and 50 persons and 41 persons and all professional law schools applied for authorization of establishment of a professional law school nationwide.

(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 the Seoul High Court; (c) may adjust the fixed number of admission allocated to the Seoul and the areas outside Seoul within the scope of 【5%; (d) may be adjusted within the scope of 【5% in the course of the fixed number of admission by university according to the results of the examination; (e) undergo a fact-finding (written examination and on-site investigation) conducted by the Law School Education Committee from December 12, 2007 to January 208; and (e) confirmed the status of application for authorization to establish the law school on January 2008; and (e) issued a final authorization on September 9, 2008.

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

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

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

The average score of the attached university universities located in the main sentence shall be the order of 870.5 1 Jeonnam-do 865.2 2 Busan-do 858.4 3 Jeonnam-do 848.14, 843.3 5 Yongnam-nam-do 829.9 8, 816.4 7, 808, 808, 808.5 808, 794.6 10, 785, 784.8 12, 771, 13, 767.0 14, 758, 16, 17, 631, 17, 65, 17, 17, 15, 7510, 15, 758.

The average score of the attached college universities located in the main sentence, Jeonnam-do, 865.2 1 Jeonbuk-do, 848.12 Won-do, 816.43 Shipbuilding 784.84 Jeju-do, 71.15

(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 universities and colleges and submitted an application for authorization of establishment based on the fixed number of admission by each university and college and the fixed number of admission, ② abolished of the law department and special law school, ③ abolished the fixed number of students equivalent to the fixed number of admission by the law school, ③ conducted subsequent measures to secure the status of the faculty members, etc., and failed to separately notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the implementation plan and the implementation plan of on-site investigations, etc. were considerably inappropriate for the operation of the law school.

(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 assign 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: A university shall allocate not more than 80 persons to the fixed number of admission taking into account not only the total points acquired by it 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

(1) The defendant merely notified the selection of the university selected as the object of preliminary authorization on February 4, 2008 at the law school, and the selection and notification of the university subject to preliminary authorization are merely a preliminary phase of the establishment of the law school, which is scheduled on September 2008, and thus, it does not directly affect the plaintiff's legal status, rights and obligations. Accordingly, the disposition subject to administrative litigation does not exist or it cannot be deemed a disposition subject to administrative litigation.

(2) Even if the Defendant’s aforementioned act of selecting and notifying the universities subject to preliminary authorization on February 4, 2008 at Jeonnam, Jeonbuk, Jeju, and Jeju (hereinafter “the four universities of this case”) constituted a disposition subject to administrative litigation, the Plaintiff is not a third party who is not subject to the said preliminary authorization, and thus, does not infringe legal interests due to the selection of the said university, and thus is not eligible to dispute the preliminary authorization disposition against other universities.

(3) Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to the disposition

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 the opening of a 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 obtain the right and position to undergo follow-up procedures, such as being given the opportunity to receive the principal by undergoing a performance inspection and on-site investigation for the principal. On the other hand, the preliminary authorization of a professional law school on February 4, 2008 is completely excluded from the subsequent procedures. Thus, the preliminary authorization of a professional law school on February 4, 2008 is not a preparatory action for the principal, but a separate independent disposition (hereinafter "the preliminary authorization disposition of a professional law school on the fourth university of this case"). Accordingly, the defendant's defense of this part of this defense is without merit.

(2) Determination on the Plaintiff’s eligibility

㈎ 인·허가 등의 수익적 행정처분을 신청한 수인이 서로 경쟁관계에 있어서 일방에 대한 허가 등의 처분이 타방에 대한 불허가 등으로 귀결될 수밖에 없는 때 허가 등의 처분을 받지 못한 자는 비록 경원자에 대하여 이루어진 허가 등 처분의 상대방이 아니라 하더라도, 구체적인 경우에 있어서 그 처분이 취소된다 하더라도 허가 등의 처분을 받지 못한 불이익이 회복된다고 볼 수 없는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 당해 처분의 취소를 구할 당사자적격이 있다 할 것이다( 대법원 1992. 5. 8. 선고 91누13274 판결 등 참조).

㈏ 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 원고와 이 사건 4개 대학은 모두 광주 권역에 소재하고 있는 대학으로서 모두 법학전문대학원 설치인가 신청을 하여 경원자관계에 있고, 피고는 법학전문대학원설치법 제7조 및 같은 법 시행령 제6조 에 따라 2,000명이라는 법학전문대학원 총 입학정원과 서울외 권역의 입학정원인 860명(43%) 및 개별 입학정원 150명의 범위 안에서 각 대학의 개별 입학정원을 정하게 되어 있으므로, 이 사건 4개 대학의 신청에 대하여 인가를 하면 원고의 신청에 대하여 거부할 수 밖에 없는 관계에 있으므로, 원고가 이 사건 처분을 다툴 법률상 이익이 있다고 할 것이고, 따라서 피고의 이 부분 본안전 항변도 이유 없다.

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 Korean Law School Education Committee, which is an incorporated association, to recommend the members of the Korean Law School Education Committee, and commissioned the non-party 1, 2, 3, and 4, who are in office as professors at the Seoul, Egylology, Gyeongbuk, and Jeon Nam, 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 Article 13 of the Act on the Establishment of Law School.

(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 5, and Nonparty 5, as well as other members of the Law School Education Committee. In the duties of the members of the Law School Education Committee, the universities that applied for authorization of the establishment of the Law School Education Committee have applied for authorization of establishment of the law school, the allocation of the admission quota, the criteria for deliberation, etc., all of which are in the position of the police officer cannot affect other universities and colleges inevitably. Therefore, the members of the Law School Education Committee cannot be deemed to have any implicit influence on the 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 among 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 inter-regional balance. compared to Gwangju and South Korea, the population, legal demand, industrial productivity ratio, etc. were assigned to Jeonbuk-do, and 140 students were assigned to Jeonbuk-nam-do, whereas only 120 students were assigned to Jeonnam-do, Gwangju and Jeon Nam-nam, and the preliminary authorization was given to the Jeju-do, which is much lower than that of the plaintiff and did not take into account the regional balance.

(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) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact 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

㈎ 법학교육위원회의 법학교수 출신 위원인 소외 1, 2, 3, 4는 2007. 12.경 자신들이 재직 중인 대학교에 대한 제척사유를 각 신고하였고, 그후 법학전문대학원 설치 인가신청을 한 총 41개 대학교에 대한 심사평가를 함에 있어서 자신들이 소속되어 있는 대학교에 대한 평가에 관여하지 않았다.

㈏ 법학교육위원회의 위원장 겸 위원인 소외 1은 이화여대 총장 및 사법개혁추진위원회의 위원을 역임하였고, 위원인 소외 2는 시민단체인 참여연대에서 법학전문대학원 도입 관련 활동을 하고 사법개혁추진위원회의 위원을 역임하였으며, 소외 3은 사법개혁추진위원회의 위원을 역임하였고, 소외 4는 전남대 법대학장, 한국법학교수회의 감사 및 사법개혁추진위원회의 전문위원을 역임하였다.

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

㈎ 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고의 재정지원에 의하여 2건의 연구용역이 실시되었는데, 그 중 제1차 연구용역은 2005. 5.～2005. 12. 서울대 소외 7 교수외 8인에 의하여 수행되어 ‘법학전문대학원 설치 및 인가 심사기준 연구’라는 제목으로 연구보고서(이하 ‘제1차 연구보고서’라고 한다)가 제출되었고, 제2차 연구용역은 2005. 12.～2006. 5. 한국학술진흥재단에서 건국대 소외 8 교수외 5인에 의하여 수행되어 ‘법학전문대학원의 교육과정 분야 설치인가 심사기준 연구’라는 제목으로 연구보고서(이하 ‘제2차 연구보고서’라고 한다)가 제출되었다.

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.

㈏ 피고는 2007. 8.～2007. 9.에 걸쳐 법원행정처, 법무부, 대한변호사협회, 한국법학교수회에 제2차 연구보고서를 송부하여 법학전문대학원 설치인가 심사기준 및 평가지표에 관하여 의견을 수렴하였다.

㈐ 법학교육위원회는 2007. 10. 5.부터 2008. 1. 26.까지 사이에 15회에 걸쳐 회의를 개최하여 법학전문대학원 설치인가 심사기준, 법학전문대학원 권역별 대학 선정 및 정원배분 등에 대하여 심의하였는데, 그 주된 심의결과는 다음과 같다.

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 organization of items. At this time, there was a need to give special opportunity 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 foreign language courses, and to enhance the number of subjects. In relation to the ratio of female professors, there was an opinion that it is necessary to increase the ratio of female professors by 30% and the number of foreign language courses opened in accordance with the policy plan of the Ministry of Education. In relation to the above evaluation items, there was a need to reflect the current status and performance in the evaluation index in relation to the competitiveness of universities and the social responsibility evaluation items. After evaluating the above evaluation items by the Ministry of Education, it was suggested that the final evaluation by the Ministry of Education should be made in accordance with the evaluation criteria of the legal education committee.

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, but 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. 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 examination and evaluation zone with five high court jurisdiction and most of five areas under the jurisdiction of the high court were supported by the committee members. The grounds for appeal are that the quality guarantee of the law school and balanced regional development should be taken into account at the same time, but the quality guarantee at the level of excellent human resources

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 discharge of legal professionals 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 evaluation field of students. In relation to university competitiveness and social responsibility, some members presented opinions that the standards for authorization of establishment of professional law schools are relevant to the standards for authorization of establishment of professional law schools and that it is reasonable to revise the method of expression on the surface in the direction that the ethical responsibility and social responsibility of university can be emphasized.

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, the number of local production, the number of cases, and the balance of legal professionals' discharge, etc.

(8) At the 15th meeting held on January 26, 2008 and 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 for each region has been determined and reported to the Defendant on January 28, 2008.

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

㈎ 청와대 전 홍보수석이었던 소외 5는 제18대 국회위원 선거에 전북 익산에서 출마를 선언한 상태에서 2007. 1. 31. 언론사 기자들에게 자신이 청와대에 근무할 당시 법학전문대학원 관련 임시 TF(Task Force)팀에 참여하여 법학교육위원회 위원 선정과정에서 청와대 홍보수석 몫으로 배정된 언론계 인사를 익산 출신 인사로 추천하여 성사시켰고, 전북 익산에 있는 원광대가 지방사립대 중 영남대에 이어 두번째로 많은 사법시험 합격생을 배출하였다는 점에 착안하여 최근 5년 사법시험 평균합격자 수와 법대졸업생 대비 합격자 수를 25점 반영해야 한다고 주장했으며, 이 기준이 원광대의 예비인가에 결정적으로 기여하였다고 발표하였다.

㈏ 소외 5는 법학교육위원회의 예비인가 대학 선정에 대한 심의결과가 피고에게 보고되기 하루전인 2007. 1. 27. 앞면에는 ‘원광대에 로스쿨을 유치시킨 소외 5’라는 문구가, 본면에는 ‘익산지역 출신 언론계 인사를 법학교육위원회 위원으로 포함시켜 결국 원광대가 로스쿨을 유치하는데 기여하였다’는 내용이 적힌 선거홍보물의 제작을 의뢰하였다.

㈐ 이로 인하여 법학전문대학원 선정 관련 파문이 정치권으로 확산되었다.

(4) Criteria for examination of this case

㈎ 외국어 강좌의 개설운영정도 관련

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.

㈏ 여성교수 비율 관련

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 expand the participation of female professors in the rate and decision-making process of female professors in universities. However, in the course of evaluating only future employment plans, there is a need to additionally employ female professors because of the higher ratio of female professors. Each university has formulated a plan for gender equality measures every three years in accordance with the plan for gender equality measures promoted from 2004 by the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development and has the results submitted every year (in the case of national or public representatives, obligations and autonomous matters), and there is a need to reflect the degree of implementation of the plan for gender equality measures during that period, 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.

㈐ 법조인 배출실적 관련

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 which appears as the 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. Therefore, it is necessary to consider it as an evaluation factor of the law school.

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.

㈑ 대학경쟁력 및 사회적 책무성 관련

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.

본문내 포함된 표 평가영역 평가항목 세부평가항목 배점 9. 대학경쟁력 및 사회적 책무성(48점) 9.1 대학구조개혁추진실적(10) 9.1.1 대학구조개혁추진실적 5 9.1.2 대학내 유사, 중복학과 통폐합실적 5 9.2 대학특성화 추진실적(10) 9.2.1 특성화분야 선정 10 9.3 고등교육의 국제화 정도(10) 9.3.1 국제화 지향목표가 대학의 중장기 발전계획에 적정하게 반영되어 있는지 여부 3 9.3.2 국제화 전담조직 형태 및 근무자 수의 적성성 2 9.3.3 연구의 국제화 실적 3 9.3.4 교육의 국제화 실적 2 ？ 9.4 연구윤리 확보 수준(10) 9.4.1 연구윤리 관련 규정 5 9.4.2 연구윤리 규정 적용을 위한 노력 정도 5 9.5 교육정상화를 위한 사회적 책무 수행 정도(8) 9.5.1 최근 3년간 대입 관련 행·재정 제재실적 유무 4 9.5.2 사회적 배려대상자 선발비율 4

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 with 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) The balance between regions is maintained

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. Determination

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

㈎ 법학전문대학원설치법 제10조 , 제11조 는 법학전문대학원에 관한 사항을 심의하기 위하여 13인의 위원으로 구성되는 법학교육위원회를 두도록 규정하고 있고, 13인의 위원 중 4인을 법학교수 또는 부교수로 위촉하도록 규정하고 있다. 한편 같은 법 제13조 는 위원 본인 또는 그 배우자가 심의대상인 대학 또는 대학을 설치·경영하는 학교법인에 재직하고 있는 경우 당해 심의에 관여하지 못하도록 하는 내용의 제척사유를 규정하고 있다.

㈏ 그런데 위 제척사유 규정에서 법학교육위원회의 심의 대상인 대학에 재직하고 있는 자는 위원이 되지 못하는 것으로 규정하고 있지 않고 심의대상인 대학에 위원 본인 등이 재직하고 있는 일정한 경우에 당해 심의에만 관여하지 못하도록 규정하고 있는 점, 제척사유 규정의 취지는 위원이 심의대상이 되는 대학과 일정한 이해관계가 있는 경우 당해 심의에 참여할 수 없도록 함으로써 심의의 객관성과 공정성을 보장하기위 한 것인데, 일정한 관계가 없는 다른 대학에 대한 심의에서 위원을 배제하지 않은 것이 잘못이라고 할 수는 없는 점, 법학전문대학원설치법 제11조 제3항 은 법학교육위원회의 위원 중 법학교수 또는 부교수 4인은 법원행정처장, 법무부장관, 대한변호사협회장의 추천을 받아 위촉되는 다른 위원들과는 다르게 다른 기관의 추천 없이 피고가 위촉하도록 규정되어 있어 피고로서는 한국법학교수회의 추천을 받을 이유가 없고, 한국법학교수회가 위원을 추천하였다고 하더라도 이에 구속되어야 할 이유가 없는 점, 피고는 이 사건 공고 전에 위원들을 위촉하여 당해 대학들이 법학전문대학원 설치인가신청을 하기 전에 이미 법학교육위원회가 구성되어 있던 점, 법학교수 위원인 소외 1, 2, 3, 4는 위원으로 위촉되기 전에 대통령 자문기구인 사법개혁추진위원회에서 위원 또는 전문위원으로 활동하는 등 법학전문대학원제도 도입단계부터 관여하였고 법학전문대학원 제도에 대한 경험을 가진 자들인 점, 법학교수 위원인 소외 1, 2, 3, 4는 2007. 12.경 자신들이 재직 중인 대학교에 대한 제척사유를 각 신고하였고, 그후 법학전문대학원 설치 인가신청을 한 총 41개 대학교에 대한 심사평가를 함에 있어서 자신들이 소속되어 있는 대학교에 대한 평가에 관여하지 않은 점 등에 비추어 보면, 법학교수인 소외 1, 2, 3, 4를 법학교육위원회의 위원으로 위촉한 행위가 위법하다고 볼 수 없으므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

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

However, as seen earlier, Nonparty 5 recommended the members of the Law School Education Committee to take place in the 18th National Assembly election and recommended the members of the Law School Education Committee and claimed the criteria for examination favorable to the original members to make a decision on the grant of preliminary authorization from the Law School. However, considering that the result of deliberation was used before the results of deliberation by the Law School Education Committee are reported to the Defendant for the production of the election campaign materials, 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 participating in the deliberation by other universities that have preferential interest with the members through academic studies, delays, and multiple accommodations, etc., and thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(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 decide whether to establish a law school, and is merely a draft which can be used by the Law School Education Committee as a draft for the decision of whether to establish a law school, 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 Science Promotion 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. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

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

㈎ 법학전문대학원설치법 제21조 는 교육과학기술부장관은 교원·시설·교육과정 등 법학전문대학원의 설치에 관한 중요한 기준을 수립·변경하고자 하는 경우에는 법원행정처장·법무부장관·대한변호사협회장 및 한국법학교수회장 등의 의견을 들어야 한다고 규정하고 있고, 같은 법 제10조 제4호 는 법학교육위원회의 심의사항으로서 법학전문대학원 설치인가의 세부기준에 관한 사항을 규정하고 있다.

㈏ 그런데 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고는 2007. 8.～2007. 9.에 걸쳐 법원행정처, 법무부, 대한변호사협회, 한국법학교수회에 제2차 연구보고서를 법학전문대학원 설치인가 심사기준안으로 하여 의견개진을 요청하여 법원행정처, 법무부 등으로부터 설치인가 심사기준안의 문제점, 변경되어야 할 부분 등에 대한 의견을 수렴하였는바, 이 사건 심사기준에서는 당초의 심사기준안과는 달리 여성교수비율, 외국어 강좌개설 운영, 사법시험합격자 및 비율, 대학경쟁력 및 사회적 책무성 등의 항목이 추가되거나 그 내용이 변경되었으나, 추가되거나 변경된 항목들은 위와 같은 의견수렴절차에서 제시된 의견이거나 2007. 10. 5.부터 2007. 10. 29.까지 7차례에 걸친 법학교육위원회의 심의과정에서 의견이 제시되어 각 위원의 안건 검토와 의견 교환, 이견에 대한 설득과정을 거치며 충분한 심의를 거치고, 최종적으로는 재적위원 과반수의 찬성으로 의결된 것이므로, 비록 피고가 추가되거나 내용이 변경된 항목에 대하여 다시 법원행정처, 법무부, 대한변호사협회, 한국법학교수회 등에 대한 의견수렴절차를 거치지 않았다고 하더라도, 이 사건 심사기준의 주된 내용에 대하여 이미 의견수렴절차를 거쳤고 법원행정처, 법무부, 대한변호사협회, 한국법학교수회 등의 의견에 대하여 법학교육위원회나 피고가 구속되지 않는 이상, 이 사건 심사기준의 수립·변경절차가 위법하다고 볼 수는 없다. 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

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

Judgment

㈎ 판단의 전제

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 (Credit) 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 through the procedures prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes within the scope of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools shall be deemed to 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 Acts and subordinate statutes or lack objective rationality or validity, it is illegal as a deviation or abuse of discretion.

㈏ 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, ① 이 사건 심사기준 중 원고가 문제를 삼고 있는 외국어 강좌의 개설운영 정도, 여성교수비율, 사법시험합격자 및 비율, 대학경쟁력 및 사회적 책무성 등의 항목은 당초 심사기준안과는 달리 추가되거나 그 내용이 일부 변경된 항목이나 위 항목들은 앞서 본 바와 같은 관계기관에 대한 의견수렴절차과정에서 의견이 제시되었거나 법학교육위원회의 심의과정에서 의견이 제시되어 충분한 심의를 거쳐 이 사건 심사기준에 포함되었던 점, ② 외국어 강좌의 개설운영 정도 항목의 경우 위 2건의 제1, 2차 연구보고서에는 평가항목으로 제시되지 않았지만 법원행정처 등에 대한 의견수렴과정에서 그 중요성이 지적되어 법학교육위원회의 심의과정에서 추가되었고, 세계가 글로벌경제로 급속히 재편되고 있고 세대와 분야를 불문하고 이러한 변화에 부응하기 위한 언어적, 문화적 교육의 필요성이 광범위하게 제기되고 있는 상황에서 법조인력의 국제화가 요구되고 앞으로 법률시장의 개방도 예정되어 있는 이상 장래의 법조인들로 하여금 반드시 국제적 활동 능력을 갖출 수 있도록 할 필요성이 있는 점, ③ 여성교수비율 관련 항목의 경우 과거에 우리나라의 각 사회영역에서 소외되었던 여성인적자원의 사회적 진출을 적극적으로 배려하여 양성평등을 제고하는 것은 국가의 책무 중의 하나라고 할 것이고, 법학전문대학원의 교수 구성이 학연과 남성 중심으로 짜여지는 것은 다양한 지적 배경을 가진 교수에 의하여 교육의 다양성을 추구하고자 하는 법학전문대학원의 도입취지에 반하는 점, 당초 제2차 연구보고서에는 5년간 채용계획만을 평가하는 것으로 되어 있었으나 향후의 채용계획만을 평가하는 경우 이미 여성교수의 비율이 높아 추가로 채용할 필요성이 적은 대학이 오히려 불이익을 받게 되는 불합리가 발생하여 일응 현재까지의 실적과 앞으로의 계획을 동시에 평가항목에 포함하는 것이 타당하다고 보이는 점, 2006년도 전국 4년제 일반대학 소속 법과대학의 경우 전임교원 중 여성교수의 비율은 국립대의 경우 평균 7%, 사립대의 경우 평균 5.2% 수준으로서 국립대와 사립대의 여성교수 확보율이 많은 차이가 난다고 볼 수 없는 점, ④ 법조인 배출실적 관련 항목의 경우 사법시험 합격자 수를 심사기준에 반영하는 것에 대하여 기득권의 보호라는 논란이 있을 수 있으나, 법학전문대학원 제도는 대학원교육에 의한 법조인력 양성제도로서 양질의 법조인을 길러내는 대학의 교육능력이 핵심적 요소가 된다고 볼 수 있는데, 법조인 배출실적이 그 동안의 대학의 법학교육 실시 및 능력을 판단할 수 있는 객관적인 지표 중 하나라고 보여지고, 설치인가를 받은 대학에 대한 입학정원을 배정함에 있어서 중요한 기준이라고 보여지는 점, 원고가 경원관계에 있는 것으로 주장하는 원광대도 최근 5년간 사법시험합격자 수가 25명 이하이므로 이 사건 심사기준에 따라 원고와 함께 각 기본점수인 3점을 받은 점, ⑤ 대학경쟁력 및 사회적 책무성 관련 평가항목의 경우 위 평가항목 중 ‘대학구조개혁 추진실적’의 평가항목은 법학전문대학원의 설치와는 직접적인 관련이 없는 기준이 아니냐는 비판이 있을 수 있으나, 대학의 구조개혁은 해당 대학의 교원, 물적시설, 재정, 입학정원 등에 영향을 미치므로 법학전문대학원의 설치·운영에 간접적인 영향을 주고, 그 배점도 10점으로서 그리 크리 않은 점, ‘대학구조개혁 추진실적’의 평가항목 중 ‘대학구조개혁 추진실적’의 세부평가항목은 배점이 5점인데, 그 평가지표에는 국립대학간 통폐합 대학으로 선정되어 정부의 재정지원 대상 대학으로 선정된 경우에는 5점, 정원감축에 따른 구조개혁 선도대학으로 선정되어 정부의 재정지원을 받은 경우 중 연차지원 대상 대학으로 선정된 경우에는 5점, 단년도 지원 대상 대학으로 선정된 경우에는 3점을 획득할 수 있도록 규정되어 있고, 평가지표 중 국립대학간 통폐합은 국립대학에 한정된 것이나 정원감축에 따른 구조개혁 선도대학은 국·공립, 사립의 설립형태와는 관계가 없고, 실제로 ‘대학구조개혁 추진실적’의 세부평가항목에서 만점인 5점을 획득한 국립대학의 수는 6개인데 비하여, 구조개혁 선도대학으로 선정되어 만점인 5점을 획득한 대학의 수는 10개이고 그 중 9개대가 사립대인 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 심사기준이 관계법령의 규정에 위반되거나 객관적인 합리성이나 타당성을 결여하였다고 볼 수 없고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

(6) Determination as to the violation of the duty of balanced consideration among regions

㈎ 헌법 제120조 제2항 및 제122조 는 국토의 균형적 발전에 관한 국가의 의무 등에 관하여 규정하고 있고, 법학전문대학원설치법 시행령 제5조 는 피고는 법학전문대학원의 설치인가 등에 있어서 지방대학의 발전과 지역발전에 필요한 우수 인력을 양성하기 위하여 지역간 균형을 고려하여야 한다고 규정하고 있다.

Meanwhile, Article 1 of the Act on the Establishment of Professional 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 professional law schools." Article 2 of the same Act provides that "The educational ideology of professional law schools may be authorized by the Minister of Education, Science and Technology in consideration of the education goal and the feasibility of curriculum in order to achieve the educational ideology under Article 2 in cases where an application is filed for authorization of the establishment of professional law schools under Article 5 (2) and the requirements for establishment, etc. of a law school based on extensive education, deep understanding of humans and society, and values aiming at free, equality and justice."

㈏ 위 관계법령의 규정을 종합하여 보면, 피고가 법학전문대학원 설치인가를 함에 있어서는 원칙적으로 법학전문대학원제도의 도입 취지인 우수한 법조인 양성을 담보할 수 있는 대학의 교육역량에 대한 객관적이고 합리적인 평가를 기초로 하되, 수도권과 비수도권, 비수도권 지역 사이의 균형을 고려하여야 하는 것으로 해석되고, 교육역량이 우수한 대학의 선발이라는 원칙과 지역간 균형 고려원칙은 서로 조화를 이루는 범위에서 적용되어야 하는 한계가 존재한다고 할 것이다.

㈐ 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고는 이 사건 공고를 하면서 심사원칙으로, ① 우수한 법조인 양성을 목적으로 하고 지역간 균형을 고려하여 선정한다, ② 전국을 고등법원 관할 구역을 단위로 한 5대 권역으로 설정하고 각 권역 내에서 우수한 대학을 법학전문대학원 설치인가 대학으로 선정한다, ③ 각 권역 내 설치인가 대학 선정시에도 지역간 균형을 고려할 수 있으나, 심사결과 부적합하다고 판단되는 경우에는 선정하지 아니한다고 정하였고, 법학교육위원회는 2007. 12. 13.자 제13차 회의에서 인구수, 지역내 생산, 사건 수 등 제반 지역여건과 법조인 배출의 균형 확보 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 서울고등법원 관할 구역인 서울권역(서울, 경기, 인천, 강원)에 52%, 대전, 광주, 대구, 부산 각 고등법원 관할 구역인 서울외 권역에 48%의 각 비율을 배분하여 입학정원을 정하되, 위 입학정원의 비율은 설치인가 심사결과에 따라 양 권역간 ±5% 범위 내에서 조정할 수 있도록 하는 내용의 입학정원 배분원칙을 정하고, 이후 양 권역간 조정을 걸쳐 서울 권역 대 서울외 권역 사이의 각 입원정원 배분비율을 57% : 43%로 정하였는 바, 법학교육위원회의 2007. 12. 13.자 제13차 회의에서 입학정원 배분시 고려할 요소인 인구수, 지역내 생산, 사건 수 등 제반 지역여건과 법조인 배출의 균형 확보는 서울 권역과 서울외 권역 사이 및 서울외 권역 상호간에 입학정원을 결정하기 위한 고려요소라고 보여지고, 같은 권역 내에서는 지역간의 균형을 고려하되 가능한 한 우수한 교육역량을 갖춘 대학을 법학전문대학원 설치인가 대학으로 선정하고자 하는 취지로 보이는 점, 원고는 광주 권역에서 1, 2위인 전남대, 전북대는 말할 것도 없고, 3위인 원광대에 비하여 이 사건 심사기준에 의한 평가에 있어서 무려 31.6점의 차이가 나 교육역량면에서 뒤지고 있는 것으로 평가되고 있는 점, 지역간의 인구수가 법학전문대학원의 입학정원을 배정하는데 절대적인 기준은 아닌 점, 제주대의 경우 원고보다는 평가점수가 13.7점 뒤지고 있고 제주도의 인구가 광주·전남·전북보다는 적으나, 제주도는 광역지방자치단체 중 유일한 섬이고, 육지로부터 상당히 멀리 떨어져 있으며, 광주 권역의 다른 지역과는 생활권을 달리하고 있고, 만약 제주대가 법학전문대학원의 설치인가를 받지 못하여 그곳의 주민들이 광주나 전남 등의 법학전문대학원을 다녀야 된다면 교통수단 등에 있어서 상당히 불편할 것으로 예견되어지며, 그 동안 관광산업 이외에는 다른 산업이 발전하지 못하여 상대적으로 다른 지역에 비하여 낙후되었으므로 법학전문대학원의 예비인가 대학으로 선정하는 것이 지역간 균형적인 발전을 위하여 필요한 것으로 보이는 점, 제주대에 대한 배정인원이 40명에 불과한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고가 원고보다 낮은 점수의 제주대를 법학전문대학원 설치 예비인가 대학으로 선정하고, 인구 등이 적은 전북지역의 전북대, 원광대에 140명의 입학정원을 배정한 반면에, 광주·전남에는 전남대에 120명의 학생만을 배정한 것이 위법하다고 할 수 없으므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장 또한 이유 없다.

(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)