Amendment to school regulations in favor of the persons subject to the previous amendment, but somewhat weak in the notification procedure, becomes effective.

In order to amend the school regulations of a university which is a municipal ordinances and rules, the need to properly notify the members of the contents of the amendment is due to the request of the school regulations to prevent damages to the members who are more unfavorable than the previous school regulations. Therefore, where the amended school regulations become more favorable than the previous school regulations, the validity of the amendment shall not be denied as long as the amendment of the school regulations was made in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Education Act or the Enforcement Decree thereof, etc.

Article 55 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act, Article 56 of the same Enforcement Decree

Plaintiff

School of Annual Generation for School Foundation

Western Branch Court of Seoul District Court of the first instance (89 Ghana3526)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

It is confirmed that the president of the annual school operated by the defendant (the third day omitted) of the school is null and void.

The judgment that the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The Plaintiff, as the cause of the instant claim, was the president of the annual school, managed and maintained by the Defendant Corporation, on August 25, 1989, removed the Plaintiff from the military register on the ground of sexual deficiencies. Since the aforementioned removal disposition is null and void due to a violation of the disciplinary procedure by failing to undergo deliberation by the faculty council, etc., it is alleged that the above removal disposition was sought to confirm the invalidity of the above removal disposition, first of all, it should be examined as to whether there was a removal disposition such as the Plaintiff’s head.

In light of the above facts stated in Gap evidence 1 (No. 1), Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-3, Eul evidence 5-2, 3 of the same evidence 5 and 4-3 of the same evidence, and the whole purport of pleadings in the above evidence 4-3 of the same evidence, each of the above facts stated in the above evidence No. 8 are included in the above evidence No. 44 of the disciplinary procedures. According to the above facts stated in the above evidence No. 1 of the above evidence No. 4 of the above year and the above facts stated in the above evidence No. 5 of the disciplinary procedures, the plaintiff is not subject to discipline No. 1 of the above year of 1987, an average of 1.31 of 1988, an average of 1.31 of the second semester of the same year, and the facts stated in the above evidence No. 1 of the school regulations are not subject to disciplinary action against the plaintiff 1 of the above year since 1989, and it is not subject to discipline No. 48 of school regulations.

Thus, the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances, has been subject to three consecutive times of school administration warnings as above, and was automatically removed pursuant to the school regulations of the defendant corporation (the foregoing notice of expulsion of the principal of school administration does not indicate the effect of expulsion of the plaintiff, but is merely a notification of the fact of expulsion of the plaintiff as a matter of course). Therefore, the plaintiff lost his status as a student of a school of the year operated by the defendant corporation, barring special circumstances.

2. According to the previous school regulations, the Plaintiff’s establishment of new school regulations on the 8th anniversary of the amendment’s establishment of new school regulations is subject to deliberation by the 8th new school regulations, and the amendment of school regulations must be made to the members of the 8th new school without deliberation by the 8th new school regulations, so that the new school regulations may be amended more unfavorable than that of the 8th new school regulations. Thus, the Defendant corporation should have notified the 8th new school regulations on its establishment of new school regulations so that the new school regulations may not be amended more than that of the 8th new school regulations, so that the new school regulations may become invalid than that of the 9th new school regulations, because the new school regulations may not be amended by the 8th new school regulations on the grounds that the new school regulations may not be amended by the 1st new school regulations on the grounds that the new school regulations were amended by the 1st new school regulations on the 8th new school regulations on the grounds that the new school regulations were amended by the 1st new school regulations on the 9th new school regulations.

3. Then, even if the above revised school regulations take effect, the plaintiff asserts that Article 48 of the above revised school regulations are null and void as a provision contrary to the reasoning that the merger of the procedure takes place, and therefore, the removal of this case against the plaintiff under the above revised school regulations is null and void. As seen above, the reason is clear in the case of removal pursuant to Article 48 of the above revised school regulations, and it is removed in the case of acquiring a grade below an average of 1.50, even if it does not go through a separate disciplinary procedure, such as the deliberation of the board of professors, even if it does not go through a separate disciplinary procedure, it cannot be said that the above provision is null and void against the reasoning. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion on the premise that it is null and void is also groundless.

4. Thus, as seen earlier, the plaintiff received three consecutive warnings from 1 semester to 1 semester 1 semester 1, 1989 and was automatically removed from the annual school under the jurisdiction of the defendant corporation pursuant to Article 48 of the amended school regulations. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation that the plaintiff still is the student of the above annual school shall be dismissed without merit (generally, in the case of lawsuits seeking confirmation of invalidity of disciplinary action or lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of expulsion, which is the notification of disciplinary action or concept in the past, the purport of the claim of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is an employee or student of the defendant and the present legal relations arising from the above past acts, and as such, the plaintiff's claim of this case is an alcoholic beverage case at the current court of our country, and the plaintiff's interest of confirmation is not determined differently from the opinion of the court of first instance, and the plaintiff's claim of this case should be determined differently from the opinion of the court of first instance to the purport that the plaintiff's claim of this case can be confirmed as the plaintiff's present interest of the plaintiff's claim of this case.

Judges Yu Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)