(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.6.18. 선고 2019구합67197 판결

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to participation by the Intervenor shall be borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim

On April 8, 2019, the defendant revoked each disposition listed in the attached disposition list among the notification of confirmation of the results of the study on school affairs and scholarship-related field conducted to the plaintiff on April 8, 2019.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a school juristic person that established and operated the C University (hereinafter “instant University”) in Naju City, which was established on April 25, 1989.

B. Around September 2018, the Defendant conducted a survey on the factual basis on the details of the instant university’s academic affairs and media reports related to the preferential treatment of scholarships, and on the status of the operation of academic affairs and scholarships.

C. On January 14, 2019, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff that he/she would be subject to warning, notification, heavy disciplinary action, minor disciplinary action, etc. on the ground of unfair granting of credits short of attendance to the Plaintiff; and (b) notified the Plaintiff that he/she would submit his/her opinion within one month; and (c) on February 13, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted a written objection on the results of the fact-finding survey to the Defendant.

D. The Defendant partially accepted the Plaintiff’s objection and based on Article 60 of the Higher Education Act on April 8, 2019, based on the Plaintiff’s “Article 60 of the Higher Education Act,” and the Defendant’s operation of the illegal learning center as follows:

1.2.2.2.2.2.2. 2.2.2. 2.2. 2.2.2. 2.2. 3.2. 2.2. 3.2. 2.2. 3.2. 2.2. 3.2.2. 2.2.2. 3.2.2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 7, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the assertion by the plaintiff and the plaintiff assistant intervenor

1) Unfair part of the credit granting insufficient to attend.

A) Non-existence of the grounds for disposition

In light of the following, the Defendant’s calculation of the number of days of attendance by the Defendant cannot be based on inaccurate belief, and the number of days of attendance recognized as the reinforcement and replacement of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) cannot be deemed as falling short of the number of days of attendance (3/4 of the number of hours of attendance) for the completion of credits.

The defendant judged whether the above materials fall short of attendance on the basis of the schedule of parliamentary activities confirmed by the Council website, schedule of activities confirmed by the panty, details of activities received from the affiliated agencies, work status records of the institution to which the employees belong, etc., and the defendant did not consider the public holidays of the pertinent semester and calculated the number of persons present at the meeting by calculating the total number of hours of attendance, etc. without considering the public holidays of the pertinent semester.

The professors of the instant university acknowledged the attendance of those present at the university by continuing reinforcement or by requiring them to submit a substitute result for those present at the university in extenuating circumstances. In the course of reinforcement, the said provision does not apply to alternative classes given due to the student’s reason for the teachers in charge of the subject. Whether to recognize a separate reinforcement and substitute attendance is granted broad discretion to the relevant professor based on the freedom of professors and the autonomy of the university.

B) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

In light of the following: (a) a considerable time has elapsed since the receipt by the Intervenor, etc.; (b) among the students subject to notification of the revocation of the credits and degree, there are students who have obtained a master’s degree by entering a graduate school; (c) there were no errors by those students reliance on the management of academic affairs and the method of recognition of attendance; (d) the number of students lacking attendance is small; (c) the faculty members faithfully conducted reinforcement and confirmed the task submitted for replacement; (d) the faculty members faithfully conducted reinforcement and verified the task submitted for replacement; (e) the rules of practical music and internal regulations stipulate the matters that were operated implicitly from the past; and (e) the professors did not fully recognize that the above internal regulations are contrary to school regulations, the part corresponding to the grounds for the disposition in this case’s Disposition is unlawful by deviating from the principle of proportionality and abusing discretion.

2) improper operation of an illegal learning hall

A) Violation of the doctrine of forfeiture of rights (effective)

Even in 2010, the Defendant did not take any measure against the university of this case despite having known the actual condition of the establishment and operation of the educational center of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff believed that there was no administrative disposition by the Defendant. However, since 12 years have passed since the closure of the educational center of this case, the instant disposition should be taken against the principle of good faith.

B) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

Considering the fact that the university of this case had established a learning hall outside the school for the convenience of new students, that immediately closed the learning hall outside the school upon the recognition of illegality, and that 12 years have passed since the closure of the learning hall without authorization, it is an excessive disposition compared to the extent of illegality of the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant provisions

Article 9 (School Education) ① of the Framework Act on Terms and Conditions (School Education), early childhood education, elementary education, secondary education, and higher education shall be established. ② Schools shall be public in character, and shall endeavor to maintain and develop sciences and cultural tradition in addition to the education of students, and to promote the lifelong education of residents. ③ School education shall be conducted with an emphasis on the whole person education including the development of creativity and the cultivation of human nature.(4) Fundamental matters concerning school education such as the kinds of schools and the establishment and management of schools shall be separately determined by Acts and subordinate statutes.(2) Fundamental human rights of students including students shall be respected and protected in the process of school education or social education. ② School education curriculum, teaching methods, teaching materials, and education facilities shall be prepared so that students may have the maximum ability of students by respecting their personality and emphasizing their personality. ③ Students shall establish ethical awareness as a student, comply with school regulations, and shall not interfere with or disrupt school education and research activities, as determined by Acts and subordinate statutes. ② School managers and founders of social educational facilities shall operate and manage the facilities such as school.

(3) The curricula of a school and a social educational institution shall be disclosed to learners in advance. (3) If a founder or operator of a public school or a private school intends to close a school or to change any important matter prescribed by Presidential Decree, the school shall obtain authorization from the Minister of Education. (2) If the Minister of Education intends to instruct or supervise a school, he/she may request the head of a school to submit relevant materials, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if necessary. (2) The Minister of Education may require the head of a school (where a school is established, referring to a person who intends to establish the school) to establish or revise school regulations (hereinafter referred to as "school regulations") within the scope of Acts and subordinate statutes. (2) The matters necessary, such as the contents of school regulations, procedures for establishment and revision of school regulations, shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. (3) The manager of a school (operation)

(2) If a person ordered to make correction or modification pursuant to paragraph (1) fails to comply with such order within the designated period without any justifiable ground, the Minister of Education may cancel or suspend the violation, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, or take measures, such as reducing the number of students, closing the department, or suspending the enrollment of students.Third, the Minister of Education may take measures under paragraph (2) without issuing an order for correction or modification under paragraph (1), if it is evident that the violation cannot be corrected or changed due to its nature, such as the termination of the violation. ② Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act (Establishment, etc. of Schools) and Article 4 (2) of the Act (2) of the Act, the person who intends to obtain authorization for establishment of a school shall apply to the Minister of Education along with the documents stating the following matters: Provided, That the procedure for authorization for establishment of a cyber university under subparagraph 5 of Article 2 of the Act shall be separately prescribed by Presidential Decree:

Article 14 (Credit Hours per Credit) (1) The required credit hours per credit under Article 21 (3) of the Act shall be determined by the school by taking into account the characteristics of the curriculum, and shall be at least 15 hours at each semester. (2) Matters necessary for recognizing the completion of required credit hours per credit under paragraph (1), such as the attendance of students, shall be determined by the school regulations.Article 39 (Inspection of Students' Attendance) (1) of the school regulations shall inspect the attendance per hour and reflect the results in the class. (3) If the attendance of each subject is inspected, and the number of class hours is not less than 3/4 of the total number of class hours, the results shall be treated as F.Article 40 (Performance (1)) (1) shall be comprehensively assessed in consideration of the examination results by subject, attendance records, subjects, and the degree and balance points as follows.

C. Determination on the "unfair allocation of credits short of attendance"

1) Whether the grounds for the disposition are recognized

A) Contents of the relevant provisions

Article 6 of the Higher Education Act and Article 4(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that matters concerning “the operation of curricula, the completion units of subjects, and the management of school records” shall be stated in school regulations. Article 21(3) of the Higher Education Act and Article 14(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that required completion hours per credit shall be determined by schools by taking into account the characteristics of curricula, and shall be at least 15 hours every semester, and matters necessary for recognizing the completion hours per credit, such as student attendance, shall be determined by school regulations. Article 39(1) and (3) of the School Regulations provide that the professor in charge of the subject of the subject shall check attendance per hour and reflect the results of attendance at each subject, and shall examine the attendance at each subject, and shall be at least 3/4 of the total completion hours per subject, and the results of the subject shall be determined by classifying them as class 1, class 4, class 4, class 5, class 4, class 9 or more.

In full view of the above-related statutes and school regulations, if a student fails to attend at least 3/4 of the total class hours, the professor in charge shall treat the grade as F, and since the F grade is not recognized as credits, in order to complete credits, at least 3/4 of the total class hours must be present. The following is examined as to whether the student, including the intervenor, etc., who was subject to notification of the cancellation of credits and degree, was present at least 3/4 of the total class hours and meet the minimum number of attendance.

B) Whether the intervenor satisfies the minimum number of attendances

(1) According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 19, Eul evidence Nos. 19, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Byung evidence Nos. 8 through 10 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole arguments, the following facts are acknowledged:

(A) The Intervenor transferred to the University of this case during the first semester in 2005 and attended the second semester in 2006.

(B) The intervenor held office from July 2002 to June 2006 as a member of the fourth king City Council, from July 2006 to the fifth king Council from June 2010, and from July 2006 to June 201, the intervenor worked as a member of the fifth king City Council E during the above period.

(C) On September 12, 2018, S, who is the professor in charge of the subjects attended by the Intervenor, stated to the effect that “A reinforcement was carried out on the night and weekends for the students who were not present on the regular curriculum on September 12, 2018,” and that “A participant is not likely to be denied, such as conference, due to the lack of examination by mail.”

(D) After ascertaining the date on which the intervenor took part in the parliamentary activities through the minutes, parliamentary council affairs, parliamentary discussions, news articles, etc. recorded on the website of the Council Council, the defendant calculated the number of days of the intervenor's attendance by excluding the date the intervenor took part in the parliamentary activities and the date the participants took part in the courses.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances revealed from the facts recognized as above, witness witness’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that even if the class day overlaps with a legal holiday, the intervenor failed to attend 3/4 or more of the total class hours of the relevant subject on the grounds of parliamentary activities, etc.

(A) The defendant did not consider a legal holiday when calculating the total number of classes for the subjects during the 2005 and the 2nd semester in 2006. On April 5, 2005, May 5, 2005, September 19, 2005, and October 3, 2005, the actual class was not given due to a legal holiday. When excluded from the class hours, the number of classes for the landscape design II was 70 hours, landscaping management, landscaping ecological science, 42 hours for each class, 42 hours for urban green belt, and 43 hours for tourism and resort development plan. However, even if the class is reduced as above, the participant did not meet the total number of classes for the daily class overlap with the parliamentary activities as follows, and thus, the number of classes did not exceed 1/43 hours for each class.

(B) The Plaintiff and the Intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff and the Intervenor were able to attend the class before and after the Plaintiff’s parliamentary activities, but it appears that the Plaintiff and the Intervenor were able to complete the class by means of reinforcement, etc., even if the Intervenor did not attend the class on the regular day, given that the distance was about 294km and the time of movement was about 3 hours. Thus, the Intervenor and the Intervenor did not appear on the regular day of the session, training session, the Special Committee on Budget, the Special Committee on Budget, and the sports competition. The Plaintiff and the Intervenor asserted that they were able to attend the class before and after the Plaintiff’s parliamentary activities. However, in light of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s parliamentary activities and the instant university’s distance, time of movement, the beginning and termination of the class and various events, and the time of the session and various events, the Intervenor appears to have been able to complete the class even if they were not present on the regular day of the class.

(C) The Plaintiff and the Intervenor asserted to the effect that the Intervenor’s participation in the reinforcement of the course undertaken by the professor in charge of the subject, should be included in the attendance time of the city waterworks participating in the reinforcement.

① However, since the intervenor was unable to attend the class due to personal circumstances, there is no ground to recognize that the professor in charge of the subject was present on a regular school day even if he did not attend the class, ② the reinforcement of the regular and temporary holidays of the university of this case was conducted on the reinforcement date as determined by the president without submitting a separate reinforcement plan, and the reinforcement of the regular and temporary holidays was conducted on the reinforcement date as determined by the president, and it was necessary to submit a plan after consultation with the school affairs support team and the reinforcement date, time, and place (Article 3). Reinforcement that the intervenor did not attend the class but did not observe the procedure prescribed in the above provision, and it is difficult to see that the reinforcement of the simple meaning was made due to the lack of instruction. ③ Even if the witness conducted the supplementary class at the ordinary and Saturday, and he testified at the school, it is reasonable to recognize that the witness was present at the level of reinforcement and reinforcement of the curriculum in Seoul.

C) Whether the minimum number of attendance of F, etc. is met

(1) According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 16, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 8 and the whole pleadings, the following facts are recognized:

(A) F, G, H, I, J, and N were enrolled in the University of this case while performing public performances, broadcasting activities, etc. by drinking or worship.

(B) N was enrolled in the social welfare department of the pertinent university, and was serving as a professor of the practical music department (part-time instructor) for a period from March 1, 2009 to February 28, 201, and from March 2, 2011 to August 21, 2011.

(C) At the 2009 Year 10-13 Tuesday (10-20), N provided a major subject II in the planning major subject II in the 2009 semester. The 2009 year lectures the major subject V subjects planned in the 9-12 Educational City (17:10-20:30) daily demand during the 2009 semester. N took the course of the English translation course in the 10-11 Educational City (10-19:45) each semester in the 2009 semester. N took the course of the course of the study in the 2009 semester in the 10-11 Educational City (10-19:45) each semester, and the 2nd semester in the 2009 year, the 16-9 Educational City (16:10-18:00) daily demand.

(D) On September 13, 2018, V, who is a professor in charge of the production and utilization of UCC taking courses F, G, and K, has given credits according to the rules of the department that recognized the attendance of broadcasting activities, etc. even though four persons, such as F, etc., could not normally attend the pertinent university due to entertainment activities, etc.

(마) J이 수강한 즉흥연주의 담당교수이자 K가 수강한 리듬섹션편곡법 등의 담당교수인 R은 2018. 9. 13. 'J 등 2명의 학생이 방송활동 등으로 이 사건 대학교에 정상적인 학교 통학을 할 수 없어 교과목 단위의 출석일수의 3/4 이상을 출석하지 아니하였는데도 C+ 학점 등을 부여한 사실이 있다.'는 취지의 확인서를 작성하였다.

(F) On September 13, 2018, JIN drafted a written confirmation to the effect that, from March 1, 2009 to June 31, 2009, the subjects Ⅲ of the practical music major : 10 to June 31, 2009, KIN was demoted to the qualification of a professor holding concurrent posts at 10 to 13 Si (1:10 to 21:20), and that, in English translation, the subjects 10 to 11 teaching cities (10 to 19:45) per week (18:10 to 19:45) are enrolled in the social welfare department in the qualification of students and operated two different classes, such as overlapping the two hours of lessons per week.

(G) The Defendant calculated the number of days of attendance of F, etc. by excluding the broadcasting day, etc. and the class day overlap after ascertaining the F, etc.’s schedule of broadcast published in F, G, H, I, and J’s panch, content of activities reported to the media, and schedule received from their employees.

(h) The number of hours indicated as the absence from J or K to the part of the attendance management for the course taken by J or K (2 to 6 of the evidence Nos. 6, and 7-2 and 3 of the evidence Nos. 7) exceeds one-fourth of the total number of class hours for the course in question.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances revealed from the facts recognized as above and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that F, G, H, I, J, K, K, and N did not attend at least 3/4 of the total class hours of the relevant subject on the grounds of duplication of broadcast activities, performance, or class hours of the subject and class hours of the subject.

(A) The university of this case is located in Naju City D, and F, etc. mainly engaged in broadcast activities or performances, etc., considering the distance and movement hours, the starting and ending hours of classes, the hours of broadcasting or performances, and the extended time, etc., it appears that F, etc. was unable to attend class on the day when broadcast activities or performances were conducted.

(B) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the pertinent professor recognized a substitute attendance by submitting the task, etc., and recognized a substitute attendance by the F, etc., shall be granted discretion to the relevant professor through the freedom of professors, the autonomy of the university, etc. However, for the following reasons, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

Freedom of professors refers to freedom to teach and teach at higher education institutions such as universities and colleges according to their academic research and achievements, and not subject to any instruction, interference or control in the contents and methods of professors. Such freedom of professors is protected as one of the contents and methods of academic freedom guaranteed by Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and Article 31(4) of the Constitution also guarantees the autonomy of universities that form the basis of academic research and teaching freedom.

The freedom of study or the freedom of professors in universities may be restricted in accordance with the general principle of statutory reservation of restriction on fundamental rights (Article 37(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea). School regulations of the university of this case include “the number of times of attendance required for the recognition of completion of required completion hours per credit” due to matters concerning “the completion unit of study and the management of school records” pursuant to Articles 6 and 21(3) of the Higher Education Act and Articles 4(1)5 and 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act following delegation. The professor of the university of this case can freely set standards and methods of evaluation in granting academic achievements, but must meet the limits prescribed by school regulations.

The school regulations of the university of this case provide that the attendance at the university of this case shall give a F grade to the deficient attendance, and the attendance at the school refers to the attendance at the designated place on the school day and the participation in the class. This means that Article 39(1) of the school regulations provides that the professor in charge of the subject shall check the attendance at the school hours, and the prior meaning of the attendance refers to the attendance at a certain place, so in order for the attendance to be recognized as attendance despite the absence of absence, the reason why the attendance at school exceptionally can be recognized as attendance should be provided separately. The school regulations of this case provide that the attendance at school shall be treated as F if the attendance is conducted without justifiable reasons (Articles 29(3) and 40(4) of the total class hours without attendance at school (Articles 39(3) and 40(4) of the school), and therefore, the attendance at school shall be treated as F in view of the fact that the attendance at school and the minimum level of teaching skills for confirming the students' intention to attend the school, etc., and thus, it cannot be recognized as a substitution of school regulations.

(C) Based on the provision of Article 5(2) of the “Rules on the Operation of the Practical Music System” (No. 11-4 of the Evidence A), the professor in charge of each subject appears to have recognized the substitution of F, etc. with the attendance of F, etc., on the basis of the foregoing provision. However, as seen earlier, since the school regulations of the instant university do not recognize the substitution of the Plaintiff, the said provision does not have effect as prescribing matters violating the school regulations.

(D) N in 209, N is expected to have been engaged in practical skills, practical skills, and practical training-centered Lson W, separately for a fixed period of time. However, in light of the fact that the lecture time planned was determined as 10 to 13 to 9 to 12 to 12 to 12 to 10, and that even if part of the lecture time is changed considering the schedule of other students who attend a number of subjects in one semester, it is anticipated that the lecture will have been proceeded with the planned lecture time; N is expected to have no way to consult with the school affairs support team on the alteration date and time of the lecture plan; N is deemed to have not attended the class for the relevant course of study.

D) Whether the minimum number of employees present is satisfied

(1) According to the purport of the entry of No. 9 and the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized:

(A) In the year 2008, this was admitted to the tourism management department of the instant university, and the place of work is X located in Seoul. P was transferred to the electrical engineering department of the instant university in the year 2010, and the place of work is Y University located in Yyangyang-gun. Q was admitted to the Korean Language Department of the instant university in 09, and the place of work is the Gwangju National Police Agency.

(B) On September 13, 2018, Z and electricity engineering, and AA, professors, of tourism management department, have prepared a written confirmation to the effect that: (a) even if P fails to meet the attendance standards under school regulations, it has given sexual and credits; and (b) graduated from February 2012.

(C) AB, AA, Z, AC, and AD, who is the professor in charge of the subjects taken by P, P, and Q, stated to the effect that the attendance did not confirm the attendance of the investigator belonging to the Defendant and applied the attendance standard at each class, without confirming the attendance at each class.

(D) The Defendant calculated the number of days of attendance compared to the class hours during which the Defendant received a work status ledger from an affiliated agency of P and Q, by receiving them from the affiliated agency.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances revealed from the facts recognized as above and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that 0, P, and Q were in office in an affiliated agency with the exception of the date on which annual leave was used, and were not present at least 3/4 of the total number of class hours for the relevant subject

(A) Considering the distance of each agency in which the University and O, P, and Q worked, hours of movement, 00 etc., and all the subjects at issue are neither online nor night lectures, but lectures that require attendance during the day, etc., it would not be possible to attend classes on the normal working day at work without using annual leave.

(B) The professors in charge of the subjects 0 et al. did not review whether they met the minimum number of attendance required by the school regulations to give points above the DO prescribed by the school regulations, and consider that they can grant credits at their own discretion even if they failed to meet the minimum number of attendance required by the school regulations. On the premise that they met the minimum number of attendance required under the school regulations, whether they should score the number of attendance and reflect the results in the class shall be within the discretion of the professor. However, recognizing that they did not treat the results without treating them as F even if they did not meet the above minimum number of attendance required by the school regulations constitutes a violation of the school regulations.

E) Reorganization

Although the Intervenor, F, G, H, I, J, N,O, P, and Q were unable to attend at least 3/4 of the total class hours, the faculty members in charge of the instant university were recognized as having been present and granted credits. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused

A) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du9910, Jun. 28, 2007; 2007Du6946, Sept. 20, 2007).

B) In full view of the following circumstances revealed from the facts recognized as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant disposition does not violate the principle of proportionality and do not constitute deviation from and abuse of discretionary power. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) Article 9(1) through (4) of the Framework Act on Education provides that schools in charge of higher education shall have public nature, and the education shall be conducted with an emphasis on whole person education including the development of creativity and the cultivation of human nature of students. The basic matters concerning higher education shall be separately prescribed by Act. Article 12 of the same Act provides that fundamental human rights of students including students shall be respected and protected in the course of school education, and teaching curricula, teaching methods, teaching materials, and educational facilities shall be provided so that students may have the maximum ability of students by respecting and emphasizing their personality. Article 16 of the same Act provides that a founder of a school shall secure and manage facilities, equipment, finance, and teachers for education as prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes. The Higher Education Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide for the standards such as the number of school days, credit hours, etc., which may be determined by school regulations as seen earlier. According to such relevant provisions, since the minimum number of school days and credit hours per school instruction cannot be satisfied, the school’s right of education can be granted to correct and its public nature.

(2) Even if the Intervenor, F, G, H, I, J, N,O, P, and Q were not aware of specific school regulations for taking credits, it seems that there was a problem of acquiring credits in terms of the public nature of education and equity with other students due to a significant lack of attendance time and the lack of attendance time. Nevertheless, it seems that the instant disposition was likely to easily obtain the degree of false school regulations of the University. Moreover, it does not prevent the Intervenor, etc. from obtaining credits and degrees again by strengthening the credits and the number of school days which fall short after the revocation of the degree.

(3) Of the regulations on school regulations, matters concerning the completion units of curriculum, such as hours of study per credit, and the management of school records, must be known to the persons in the position of teaching staff who educate and guide students. Nevertheless, professors such as the head of the practical music department, L, andM, of the pertinent university established and implemented internal regulations that recognize broadcasting activities, etc. without any ground, such as school regulations, may lead to the decliation of school regulations, and thus, the degree of the misconduct is not less severe. Although the Plaintiff asserts that the said regulations merely stipulate the matters which were operated impliedly from the past, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said regulations are nothing more than those specifying the matters that were operated implicitly from the past, it is erroneous to recognize the voluntary contents without delegation of school regulations, etc. by the internal regulations, and that it is recognized with the attendance of broadcasting activities under the responsibility of professors and that the broadcast activities may be determined with the attendance of broadcasting activities.

(4) Some professors, such as R and S, arbitrarily recognized the attendance of participants, etc. who did not normally attend and granted credits. They were in a teachers’ position and failed to comply with school regulations, and the aforementioned behavior of professors lower the quality level of higher education and undermine the public nature of education.

D. Determination on the improper operation of the "illegal learning center"

1) Whether the principle of protection of trust (effective) is violated

A) Since the legal principle of forfeiture or invalidation is a derivative principle based on the principle of good faith, which is the general principle of law, it cannot be ruled out that not only the management relationship among public law relations, but also the power relationship should not be applied. However, since the right holder did not exercise his/her right over a long-term period despite the existence of an opportunity to exercise his/her right, it means that the other party who is the obligor does not allow the exercise of his/her right when it comes to be a legitimate cause to believe that he/she would not exercise his/her right already or would not exercise his/her right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu915, Apr. 27, 198).

B) According to the evidence Gap evidence No. 14, the defendant is recognized to have inquired the university of this case to identify the actual condition of the operation of the non-authorized learning center. However, in light of the fact that the president of the university of this case respondeded to the "not operating the non-authorized learning center" at the time, and the period during which the administrative disposition should be taken after ascertaining the actual condition of the non-authorized learning center, it is difficult to deem that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the defendant did not take any measure against the plaintiff merely because the defendant was aware of the plaintiff's non-authorized learning center operation in advance and did not take any measures for a long time. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

2) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused

In light of the following circumstances revealed from the grounds of the disposition above and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) the university of this case, without obtaining the approval of the change of location from the defendant at a place other than the university of this case; (ii) the period from 2003 to 2006 was shorter than the period; and (iii) the defendant's approval at the time of the change of location was intended to prevent the unexpected damages to students or students scheduled to enter the university due to the change of location, and to protect the quality and trust of education through the defendant's guidance and supervision, it is difficult to view it as minor improper cases, such as lack of procedural procedures, which caused the defendant's failure to operate the study site without the authorization for three years; and (iii) the plaintiff operated the study site without the authorization after 206, but the defendant appears to have determined the "agency warning" in consideration of this, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's disposition of the "agency warning" in this part as to this ground is considerably inappropriate in light of social norms.

E. Sub-decision

The instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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