1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.

1. 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 dismissal or deletion as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The grounds for appeal by the Defendant do not differ significantly from the allegations of the Defendant in the first instance trial, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the first instance trial are fully examined, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court that rejected the Defendant’s assertion is justifiable if the Defendant excluded the following portions. The overall defense part of the 8th 4 and 7th e.g., the first instance court’s decision is just.

On January 18, 2010, the Defendant and the Intervenor demanded restructuring from the time the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology announced the results of the selection of private universities which were insolvent in business management on or before January 18, 201, and announced on February 10, 201, “the plan to set the lending limit for school expenses” included “the rate of new students recruitment” in the “the plan to set the lending limit for school expenses” in the important absolute evaluation index for the selection of universities that were subject to the restriction on loan restriction, and completed the establishment of the basic plan for the production of recruitment courses and the establishment of the basic plan until April 201, and the time limit for the commencement of the recruitment activities from May 201 to May 2012 to May 2011. Thus, the Defendant and the Intervenor asserted that the corporate board of directors of the board of directors scheduled to be held on April 25, 2011 have obtained prior notice and reduced the period of perusal with the approval of the president.

However, even according to the statements in Eul 43, 46, 47, and 48, the defendant's assertion that the intervenor submitted to the Minister of Education, Science, and Technology a letter of undertaking to implement the restructuring of universities with the content that the number of 1,170 persons in 2010 shall be reduced to 850 persons in 2011 was already August 26, 2010, and that the recruitment activities of new students in 2012 and 2014 should be conducted in full after six months in all.