1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 30, 2009, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s conversion from a lifelong educational establishment to a cyber college, which is one of the types of schools stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Higher Education Act, and added the conditions of authorization, including the following: “The Plaintiff shall secure fundamental property equivalent to 50% of the total annual income from school accounting based on the relevant school year pursuant to Article 7 of the Regulations on the Establishment of Cyber Colleges Act (it may be governed by Article 3 of the Addenda to the Regulations on the Operation of the Establishment of Cyber Colleges until 2012)” and “if the Plaintiff fails to comply, it may take measures such as revocation of the approval for establishment of a university or suspension of enrollment of reduced students and suspension of administrative and financial sanctions

B. The Plaintiff, upon obtaining a conversion authorization, submitted a guarantee insurance policy substituting the shortage of basic assets for profit pursuant to Article 56(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act. The Plaintiff failed to secure basic assets for profit as stipulated under the above authorization conditions until three years have passed from the authorization of conversion.

From December 12, 2012 to June 8, 2013, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to secure the shortage of basic assets for profit on four occasions, but issued a disposition suspending solicitation of 2,085 persons with the fixed number of admission on August 26, 2013, which was not implemented.

(hereinafter referred to as “transfer disposition”). (c)

Since then, on December 17, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to secure the shortage of basic property for profit-making purposes again to the Plaintiff, but failed to comply with the order. According to the current status of securing basic property for profit-making purposes as of March 1, 2016, which was submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Plaintiff secured 57.2% out of the basic property for profit-making purposes of KRW 15.46 million, which is 37.2% of the basic property for profit-making purposes.

On October 17, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition suspending recruitment of 40% (1,200) compared to the fixed number of admission for the year 2017 on the ground that the Defendant had not secured basic property for profit-making purposes.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). [The grounds for recognition] does not dispute, and there are evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, and 9.