208Guhap18748 Revocation of preliminary authorization

1. The Seoul National University of Law and College of Law;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

10. I

11. J.

The Minister of Education, Science

July 22, 2008

September 2, 2008

1. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s revocation of the preliminary authorization on February 4, 2008 for the establishment of Korea University of Law School.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in the absence of dispute between the parties or by taking into account the whole purport of the arguments in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1 through 12, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 5-6:

A. Status of the party

The Plaintiff’s Association of Law School and University is a student local government that is registered with the bachelor’s degree course at the Seoul National University. Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, D, E, F, G, H, I are students at the Seoul National University Law School and the Plaintiff J is students at the Seoul National University Law School. The Defendant is authorized to authorize the establishment of a professional law school pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Law Schools (hereinafter “Law School”) enforced on September 28, 2007.

(b) Implementation process of a professional law school system;

1) In order to provide high-quality legal services in response to the various expectations and requests of the people, the Presidential Advisory Committee, as an advisory organization, took charge of preparation for the introduction of the law school system in order to train legal professionals with knowledge and ability to resolve legal disputes professionally and efficiently based on professional ethics and values, and prepared a proposal for the establishment of law school on May 16, 2005.

2) Based on the draft of the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools prepared by the Judicial Reform Promotion Committee, the Defendant submitted the draft of the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools to the National Assembly on October 2005 through consultation with the related departments and the process of gathering opinions from universities. On July 3, 2007, the draft of the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools was passed by the National Assembly on September 28, 2007.

3) The defendant conducted two research service projects (KF - 2005 - 044 - B0017, policy research tasks 2005 - Designation - 42) throughout the course of 2005 and 2006, and collected the opinions of the National Court Administration, the Ministry of Justice, the Korean Bar Association, and the Korea National Bar Association on August 2007 from August 2007 to September 2007, and prepared an evaluation index by holding a council of experts and junior colleges on four occasions.

4) Meanwhile, on October 5, 2007, the Defendant organized the Law School Education Committee to deliberate on matters concerning authorization for the establishment of a law school prior to the law pursuant to Articles 10 and 11 of the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools, and commissioned 13 members, including 00, legal professors (Korean law professors), 000, 000 (Seoul Law School Professors), 000, 100, and 13 members, who are law professors.

(c) Public announcement of application for authorization for establishment of professional law schools;

1) After deliberation by the Law School Education Committee, on October 30, 2007, the Defendant publicly announced an application for authorization of the establishment of a law school (hereinafter referred to as “instant public notice”) with the Ministry of Education No. 2007 - 120 as follows.

4. Total admission quota;

-The total admission quota for professional law schools in 2009 shall be 2,000 persons.

5. Method of selection;

-to train excellent legal professionals and to select them in consideration of regional balance.

-The whole country shall be set up as five zones with the jurisdiction of the high court, and outstanding universities shall be selected as a university with the authorization of the establishment of the law school within each region.

○ Even when a university is authorized to be established within each region, balance among regions may be considered, but is not appropriate as a result of the examination.

A person shall be appointed.

shall not be selected, if it is deemed that

-A professional law school (including the fixed number of admission of each graduate school) shall be established by the Minister of Education, subject to deliberation by the Law School Education Committee.

6. Review and evaluation;

·Evaluation in accordance with the examination criteria for authorization for establishment of professional law schools prepared after deliberation by the Law School Education Committee

-Performance evaluation shall, in principle, be based on the date of public announcement.

7. Announcement of a selected university;

-Preliminary Authorization (Notice of the Results of Examination of Establishment Plan): Flag on January 2008

○ Doz. : around September 2008

2) On October 30, 2007, the Defendant announced the examination criteria for authorization of the establishment of a professional law school (hereinafter referred to as the “examination criteria of this case”) and introduced the preliminary authorization system on January 1, 2008 to make an investment planned in teachers, facilities, etc. The examination criteria of this case consists of nine areas, such as education objectives, admission screening, curriculum, teachers, students, students, schools, education, finance, related degree courses, university competitiveness, social responsibility, and 132 items.

(d) Application for authorization for establishment of professional law schools at Seoul National University;

On November 2007, the Seoul National University applied for authorization of the establishment of a professional law school with the admission quota of 150 students, specialized areas as international law firms, public human rights, and corporate financing, and 41 universities applied for authorization of the establishment of a professional law school nationwide.

(e) Criteria for allocating admission quota to professional law schools;

1) On December 14, 2007, the Defendant comprehensively considered the number of admission at the law school: (a) the number of population, total production in the region (GDRP), number of cases, and other regional conditions; and (b) the balanced securing of legal professionals’ emissions; and (c) the fixed number of admission allocated to the Seoul High Court and the Seoul outside Seoul outside of Seoul within the scope of 【5%; (d) the fixed number of admission allocated to each university in the course of the fixed number of admission by each university according to the result of the examination, may be adjusted within the scope of 【5%; (e) the results of the deliberation by the Law School Education Committee from December 2, 2007 to January 2, 2008, the Defendant determined and announced the preliminary authorization for establishment of the law school at the end of January 208; and (e) confirmed the status of the application for authorization for establishment of the law school at the law school, including faculty members, and announced the final authorization.

2) After that, the Law School Education Committee set 57% of the fixed number of admission in Seoul Metropolitan Area and 43% of the fixed number of admission in Seoul Metropolitan Area, and conducted documentary examination and on-site investigation in accordance with the examination criteria in this case.

(f) Selection, etc. of preliminary law schools;

1) Members of the Law School Education Committee have assessed and given points to each other who applied for authorization of establishment in accordance with the instant review criteria.

2) According to the results of deliberation by the Law School Education Committee on February 4, 2008, the Defendant selected 15 universities and 15 universities and 10 universities and 25 universities and 25 universities and 15 universities and 15 universities and 25 universities in Seoul, including Seoul National University (Assignment Number: 150 students), and did not separately notify the selected universities of the fact that preliminary authorization was selected as universities and that application for authorization of establishment based on the fixed number of admission by universities and college and ① modification and supplementation of application for authorization of establishment based on the fixed number of admission; ② abolition of the law department (department) and special law school; ③ the fixed number of students equivalent to the fixed number of admission by the law school after reducing the fixed number of faculty members, etc.; ③ the implementation of on-site investigation conducted to check on implementation, such as securing teachers, and the implementation plan of on-site investigation, etc., and the fact that preliminary authorization was not notified separately.

3) The Defendant, through the news report data on February 15, 2008, disclosed the determination of the quota by region, the principle of preliminary authorization, the principle of determining the quota by university and college, and the result thereof.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Main Safety Defenses

1) On February 4, 2008, the Defendant merely notified the selection of the Seoul University, etc. selected as the object of the preliminary authorization for the establishment of the law school, and the selection and notification of the said university are merely merely the preparation stage of the disposition of authorization for the establishment of the law school, which is scheduled around September 2008. Thus, it does not directly affect the legal status, rights and obligations of the Seoul University. Accordingly, the disposition subject to administrative litigation does not exist or is an object of the transmission to the administrative office.

2) Even if the Defendant’s act of selecting and notifying a university subject to preliminary authorization on February 4, 2008 constitutes a disposition subject to administrative litigation, the Plaintiff is not a third party, who is not subject to the aforesaid preliminary authorization, and thus, did not infringe legal interests due to the selection of the said university, and thus, is not eligible to dispute the preliminary authorization disposition against the Seoul University.

3) Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Considering that an administrative disposition subject to appeal under the Administrative Litigation Act is a law enforcement related to a specific fact conducted by an administrative agency as the public authority and directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. In this case, only the university granted the preliminary authorization may initiate preparatory work for the opening of the law school, and may modify or supplement the application for the establishment authorization, and may be given an opportunity to undergo subsequent procedures, such as obtaining the opportunity to obtain the principal’s performance inspection and on-site investigation for the principal. However, such rights and status may not be newly granted due to the preliminary authorization, but rather than to obtain the final authorization from the application for the establishment of the law school, the subsequent procedures remain for the establishment of the law school and exclude the rest of the university from the preliminary authorization, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s implementation of the preliminary authorization procedure is not a new one for the establishment of the law school, but a new one for the implementation of the preliminary authorization procedure, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s implementation of the preliminary authorization procedure is an independent one for the implementation of the preliminary authorization procedure.

2) Even if the preliminary authorization of this case is deemed an administrative disposition, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have a legal interest in revoking the preliminary authorization of the Seoul National University on the following grounds.

A) Even a third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the administrative disposition, if there is a legal interest in seeking the revocation thereof, the standing to sue is recognized, and legal interest here refers to cases where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the relevant disposition. However, this does not include cases where it does not include indirect, factual, or economic interest such as abstract, average, and general interest commonly owned by the general public as a result of the protection of public interest (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3964 delivered on February 28, 195, etc.).

Article 1 of the Act on the Establishment of Professional Law Schools provides that the purpose of Article 1 is to train excellent legal professionals by providing for matters concerning the establishment, operation, education, etc. of professional law schools. Article 5 of the Act provides that schools which intend to establish professional law schools shall meet the requirements for establishment of professional law schools and obtain authorization from the defendant, and that the defendant shall obtain authorization after deliberation by the Law School Education Committee. As such, it is reasonable to view that the Act on the Establishment of Professional Law Schools was established for the public interest purpose of training excellent legal professionals through the establishment of professional law schools to enable them to receive high-quality legal services from the people.

B) Article 8(1) of the Act on the Establishment of Law Schools provides that no school with a law school may have an undergraduate degree program with a law school, and Article 2(1)12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "measures against students of the law bachelor's degree program repealed at the time of application for authorization of the establishment of law school" shall be submitted. Thus, Article 8(1) of the Act and Article 2(1)12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provide that measures for students of the law school shall be taken for the various public interest asserted by the defendant. Since Article 8(1) of the Act and Article 2(1)12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provide that measures for students of the law school shall be taken in accordance with the establishment of law school, it is difficult to view each of the above provisions to be a pure provision for the protection of public interest. Accordingly, each of the above provisions can be viewed as a basis law that directly and specifically

Article 8 of the Act provides that a school with a professional law school shall not have an undergraduate law degree program (Article 1). However, the above provision provides that students of the existing law school shall maintain a faculty for a considerable period of time to be systematically considered so that they may not suspend their studies (Article 2). The above provision’s purpose is to ensure that a professional law school has been settled as soon as possible in line with the purpose of the establishment of a professional law school that provides various specialized legal education in the course of bachelor’s degree, and at the same time, to minimize side effects following the abolition of the law school, it is only a provision on the operation of a professional law school, and it is difficult to view it as a ground law that protects the plaintiffs’ direct and specific interests.

In addition, the "measures against students of the abolished law bachelor's degree course" (Article 2 (1) 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act) is one of the documents to be prepared for application for authorization of the establishment of a law school. For the purpose of minimizing side effects caused by the abolition of the law school, such as the operation of the law department, which is the name of the university which has obtained authorization of the establishment of the law school, by a formal operation of the law department, etc., the above provision is established to examine how the universities operate a temporary law department, and as a result, the above provision is a result to consider students of the existing law school. However, this is for the direct purpose following the observance of the law, which is to protect the public interest, and related parties' interest is merely an anti-private interest due to the protection of the public interest.

Therefore, due to the preliminary authorization for the Seoul National University, the Plaintiffs, who were graduates, either indirectly or factually, have an economic interest with respect to the law school establishment law school, cannot be deemed to have a direct and specific interest protected by law.

C) Ultimately, the Plaintiffs are eligible to seek the revocation of the instant preliminary authorization against the Seoul University.

Since there is no objection, this part of the defendant's defense pointing this out is justified.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is deemed to be one mother or illegal, it is not necessary to examine this case, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges in fixed form of judge

Judges Park Jong-ho

Domina decoration