(a) Scope of administrative dispositions subject to an appeal litigation;

(b) Whether the internal guidelines for calculating the internal results within the basic plan for university admission have an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation;

A. An administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, shall be an act in the public law of an administrative agency, which is an act of establishing a right pursuant to the law regarding a specific matter, ordering an obligation pursuant to the law, and which is directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as giving other legal effects, and in itself, it shall not cause a direct change to the specific rights and obligations of the people, but shall not be an act which is merely a general, abstract law or internal bylaws and an internal

B. In order to achieve the unification of the internal standards, the Minister of Education prepared the implementation guidelines for the internal standards for internal standards in the content of the university admission master plan and notified them by the City/Do superintendent of education is limited to the internal standards for the internal evaluation of internal standards within the administrative organization, and each high school uniformly bound to calculate the internal standards, and there is no possibility that some examinees may suffer any disadvantage due to the above guidelines due to the relationship in which each high school is bound to recognize the same as it is, and the university has no choice but to select the students. However, even if such circumstance alone does not necessarily lead to a direct change in the specific rights and obligations of a specific person, it cannot be deemed that there was an infringement of an individual and specific right immediately pursuant to the above guidelines. Therefore, the guidelines for the internal standards cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is the object of an appeal litigation.

Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu528 delivered on April 26, 1983 (Gong1983,907) 87Nu761 delivered on November 24, 1987 (Gong1988,189) 93Du2 delivered on April 12, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1312) 93Nu9163 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2817)

Appellant 1 and 9 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and 2 others

The Minister of Education

Seoul High Court Order 94Nu463 dated June 8, 1994

All reappeals are dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

(1) In this case, the Re-Appellants established a basic plan for university admission and notified the City/Do superintendent of education on April 11, 1994, including the fact that when students of art and sports-based high schools, who are special purpose high schools, support the same department, 1995, the other party may conduct a comparative assessment with the internal grade of the general high schools at the request of the high school, and then seek for the revocation of its validity by considering the notification of the modification of the basic plan at the time of university admission to the above basic plan as an administrative disposition and seeking the suspension of its validity.

(2) The administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, shall be an act of an administrative agency's public law, which is an act of establishing rights and obligations pursuant to the law regarding a specific matter, ordering obligations pursuant to other legal effects, and shall be an act which has direct relations with the rights and obligations of the people, such as causing a direct change in the specific rights and obligations of the people, and in itself, it shall not be an object of the administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu528, Apr. 26, 1983; 87Nu761, Nov. 24, 1987).

(3) However, Article 11-2 of the Education Act provides that admission to a university shall be made by the method of selection prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 71-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the method of selecting students of a university shall be determined by the head of the university, while Article 71-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides three criteria, such as internal and academic ability test results, and the examination results by university, shall be determined by the head of the university.

In addition, while Article 71-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is being implemented by the Minister of Education for the study ability test among the above criteria, there is no provision on the calculation standards or methods of internal records in the statutes, and the Minister of Education prepares guidelines for the calculation standards of internal records based on the general command and supervision right prescribed in Article 6 of the Education Act and instructs each high school through each superintendent of education, so that the calculation standards of internal records can be conducted by the uniform standards through each superintendent of education.

Therefore, each high school shall calculate the internal results in accordance with the above guidelines and select new students as one of the evaluation factors in each university.

(4) In light of the above recognition doctrine, the calculation process and its meaning of internal results in this case, whether or not guidelines for internal results calculation within the same university admission master plan have an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation or not, and the Minister of Education prepared and notified the implementation guidelines for internal results calculation in the contents of the basic plan at the time of university admission to ensure the unification of internal results calculation in order to ensure the unification of internal results calculation standards is merely an internal review guidelines for internal results evaluation within an administrative organization, and thus, it is not a direct change in specific rights and obligations of a specific person in reality. Thus, the above internal results calculation guidelines cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

Of course, each high school is bound to calculate the inner records in a uniform fashion of the above guidelines, and there is no possibility that some examinees may suffer any disadvantage due to the above guidelines. However, even if such circumstance alone, it is difficult to recognize that an infringement of individual and specific rights was done by the above guidelines. Thus, such circumstance does not interfere with the above conclusion.

(5) The court below's decision that the other party's notification of the modification of the basic plan at the time of entering the university of this case, which contains different reasoning or a conclusion, cannot be seen as an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles, lack of reason, or misunderstanding of facts. The argument is without merit.

2. On the second and third grounds for appeal

In the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below argued that the re-appellant, who is the examinee, has no right to dispute the above basic plan or amendment guidelines, since the formulation or amendment of university entrance planning like this case, among the reasons of the judgment below, is discretionary by the Minister of Education. However, the judgment of the court below is merely a mere explanation of the reasons because the re-appellant's application of this case was subject to non-administrative disposition, and thus it cannot be accepted. Thus, the ground of appeal on this point is justified as the judgment of the first ground of appeal as seen earlier. All of the arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)