1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as follows: (a) part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited as “paragraph (2)”; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff to “paragraph (3)” under the following subparagraphs; (c) thereby, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2)

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Part VII of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance, “In light of the fact that there is no ground to see that sanctions are excluded,” shall be written in the following manner:

【No grounds exist to deem that a school is excluded from sanctions. ④ Although Article 60(1) of the School Education Act provides that “The Minister of Education may order the founders, etc. of the school to correct or change the matters concerning facilities, etc. within a specified period, if the school violates education-related Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., with regard to such matters, the Minister of Education may order the founders, etc. of the school to correct or change such matters. However, in general, the school is not a juristic person, but a juristic person, an unincorporated association or foundation, and it is difficult to evaluate that it is a violation of the school itself separately from the juristic person that establishes and operates the school (Article 62(1) of the Higher Education Act provides that “unlawful acts such as

(5) Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful mainly on the ground of the defect in the second corrective order, and in general, the preceding administrative act does not necessarily become null and void, and if the administrative act was not revoked through administrative litigation, etc., barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff cannot claim the illegality of the preceding administrative act on the ground of the defect in the preceding administrative act.