[1] Whether an administrative agency may refuse to accept a report on substantial grounds in a case where a report is made by meeting all the formal requirements under Article 22 of the former Lifelong Education Act to provide remote lifelong education to many and unspecified persons by using information and communications media (negative)

[2] The case holding that the above disposition is unlawful on the ground that the competent administrative agency's rejection of repair as well as the ground for disposition is not recognized, in case where Gap who established the Internet subsidence and Exemplary learning Center for the purpose of conducting education online, reported to a lifelong educational establishment pursuant to Article 22 (2) of the former Lifelong Education Act, but the competent administrative agency's rejection of education is likely to violate the Medical Service Act, etc.

[1] According to Article 22(1), (2), and (3) of the former Lifelong Education Act (amended by Act No. 8640 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “Act”), Article 27(1), (2), and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18245 of Jan. 29, 2004), where a person intends to conduct a remote lifelong education without receiving learning fees, he/she may freely do so without any report. However, where the above education is conducted for many unspecified persons without receiving learning fees, he/she shall report it. However, Article 22(2) of the Act and Article 22(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act (amended by Act No. 8640 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “Act”), and Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18245 of Jan. 29, 29, 2000). 200).

[2] In a case where Party A, who established the Internet bet-to-art learning center for the purpose of conducting education online, reported to a lifelong educational establishment pursuant to Article 22(2) of the former Lifelong Education Act (amended by Act No. 8640 of Oct. 17, 2007), but the competent administrative agency rejected the report on the ground that the contents of education are likely to be in conflict with the Medical Service Act, the case holding that the competent administrative agency's disposition is unlawful on the ground that it cannot be denied on the ground of substantive reasons, such as accepting the report as long as the report is not defective and documents are equipped, and the contents of the report are not in compliance with the public interest standard, and it is difficult for the administrative agency to block the provision of opportunities for education about bet-to-art and learning to be provided to be a uniform and whole area with an opportunity to do so only because it is an excessive exercise of guardianship public authority, but also does not fall under the scope of formal examination.

[1] Article 22(1) and (2) (see current Article 33(2) and (3) (see current Article 33(3)) of the former Lifelong Education Act (Amended by Act No. 8640, Oct. 17, 2007); Article 27(1) and (2) (see current Article 49(2) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18245, Jan. 29, 2004; see current Article 49(3)); Article 49(2) and (3) (see current Article 49(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act (Amended by Act No. 8640, Oct. 17, 2007; see current Article 33(1) and (2) and (3) (see current Article 33(2) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act) / [2] Article 2222(3) of the former Lifelong Education Act (Amended by Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6646 delivered on August 29, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2918)

Plaintiff (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government District Office of Education (Attorney Jeong-soo)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu13426 delivered on August 25, 2005

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 22(1) of the former Lifelong Education Act (amended by Act No. 8640 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “Act”) provides that “Any person who intends to conduct a remote education in the form of education in the form of a distance education by providing the specified or unspecified persons with various information through the information and communication media.” Article 22(2) provides that any person who intends to conduct a remote education in the form of education in the form of a distance education shall report to the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development, and Article 22(3) provides that any person who intends to establish a distance education establishment in the form of a distance college which is recognized as having the academic ability and degree equal to those of junior college or university graduates shall obtain authorization from the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development. In addition, Article 22(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Lifelong Education Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18245 of Jan. 29, 2004; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that a report shall be submitted along with a report stating the above requirements.

According to the above provisions, any person may freely conduct a remote lifelong education without receiving learning fees, if he/she intends to conduct a remote lifelong education without receiving such fees. However, if such education is conducted for many and unspecified persons, he/she shall report it. However, Article 22(2) of the Act and Paragraph (1) of the same Article do not stipulate different requirements such as the object or method of education in addition to receiving “learning fees” and does not impose any restrictions on the amount of learning fees or receipt, etc. in the case of Paragraph (2) of the same Article, in light of the fact that the defendant does not have any defects in the matters stated in the report and has any prescribed documents, and even if such formal requirements are satisfied, he/she shall accept it, and even if such requirements are met, he/she shall not refuse to accept the report on substantial grounds such as that the education or learning subject to reporting is not in conformity with the public interest standards (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu646, Aug. 29, 197).

2. The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance and recognized the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate on the ground that the defendant's report of this case can be rejected on the ground that, in full view of the following facts: (a) the course of the education in this case constitutes a medical practice and it is evident that all persons other than those qualified as medical care providers pursuant to the previous provisions before the Medical Service Act enters into force; (b) practice anticipated to be conducted during the curriculum in this case would be subject to punishment without a license; (c) erosion and water quality practice is likely to cause various side effects in the actual process; and (d) the students who received the course related to erosion and water quality education in this case are anticipated to have actually conducted the course of the lifelong education in this case; (b) the plaintiff issued a certificate to the person who completed the course in each stage of the education in this case, and therefore, (c) whether the contents specified in the operation rules attached to the report conflict with the Medical Service Act; and (d) the actual anticipated side effects caused by the education.

3. However, the above recognition and determination by the court below are not acceptable for the following reasons.

A. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the report of this case is deemed to have both the report and the accompanying documents required under Article 27(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree, and the defendant also does not consider the fact that there is a formal defect in the entries of the report or the documents submitted. Thus, the defendant should accept the report so long as there is no defect in the matters to be stated in the report and the documents are equipped with the prescribed documents, and it is not possible to refuse to accept the report on the ground of substantive reasons, such as that the report is not in conformity with the public interest standard. Therefore, the defendant's rejection of the report of this case as the grounds for rejection

B. Next, it is difficult to obtain a disposition that the Defendant refused to accept the report of this case by making a substantial examination.

(1) Under the current legal system, the procedure of lone-way treatment is, in principle, conducted by a licensed or qualified medical person (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order 2008Hun-Ga19, 2008Hun-Ba108, 2008Hun-Ba108, 2008Hun-Ba269, 736, 2010Hun-Ba38, 2010Hun-Ma275, Jul. 29, 2010). The instant remote lifelong education is aimed at educating medical knowledge about the principle, method, efficacy, and structure of bodies, so long as it can not be ruled out that the curriculum of this case using the information and communication media is based on the natural premise of non-licensed medical practice, as long as clinical education, etc. is not conducted by other alternative means that do not include non-licensed medical practice.

(2) The Constitution declares the rights of the people in relation to education and the State’s responsibility to promote lifelong education (Article 31(1) and (5) of the Constitution), and relevant laws and regulations, such as the Framework Act on Education, provide the people with an opportunity to receive education in various fields, so that they can freely determine and implement the course, method, time, etc. of lifelong education in order to provide them with an opportunity to receive education (Articles 3, 10, and 5 of the Framework Act on Education).

The high interest and desire of the general public for the maintenance and promotion of health is met by various forms of social education through articles, news reports, and knowledge sites of various information and communication media. As a result, this is not only by simple maintenance and improvement of health, but also by the cause, symptoms, treatment, and prevention of diseases that can be assigned to the public.

Although it is not possible to encourage the imprudent acquisition or open practice of some erroneous knowledge in the process of broad dissemination of such medical knowledge and information, it is difficult to restrict the general public to have exclusive knowledge and information between experts, without any legal basis, and to prohibit their access or learning. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the study of this case’s curriculum understanding the principle of human body and light blood, and to acquire the knowledge of the imprudent and the procedure widely transferred and implemented by the private sector itself is excluded from those of lifelong education.

(3) The opportunity to learn knowledge about human body and disease in order to protect and promote one’s own health belongs to the fundamental rights of the people for the pursuit of happiness and their lives worthy of human dignity, and thus, it cannot be restricted unless there is a separate legislative measure.

However, even if the curriculum intended to be provided through lifelong education of this case includes contents of medical expertise, it should be distinguished from cases where it is legally prohibited, concept of justice or social norms are not permitted, and as seen earlier, it cannot be readily concluded that the act of violation, such as non-licensed medical practice, has already been scheduled from the stage of the report of this case.

If, after the report of this case is accepted, prohibited acts such as non-licensed medical practice or establishment and operation of unregistered private teaching institutes, etc. in the actual curriculum, criminal punishment or separate administrative regulation on such acts may not be possible, but it is not necessary for the public interest to prevent the provision of opportunities for education and learning to be uniformly and exclusively for the provision of opportunities for education and learning to be ensured by an administrative agency only with a vague concern that there is such prohibited acts.

C. Therefore, the Defendant’s refusal to accept the instant report is illegal in that it not only constitutes a ground for rejection of acceptance, but also is illegal in that it does not recognize the ground for rejection of acceptance. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the report, etc. under Article 22(2) of the Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal assigning this error are with merit.

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)