1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the parts against the Plaintiff X, Z, and AK shall be modified as follows:

Defendant on July 16, 2012, Plaintiff X and.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition of some contents as follows. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The secondhh of the judgment of the first instance court is "Enforcement Decree" as "Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25375, Jun. 11, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply)."

The thirdhhh of the judgment of the first instance court, “AK succeeding to Plaintiff X and Z was transferred from the above plaintiffs, and then registered the establishment and operation of a private teaching institute under its own name on August 7, 2013. The succeeding intervenor of Plaintiff AK transferred the AL teaching institute operated by Plaintiff AK, and the succeeding intervenor of Plaintiff AK changed the establishment and operation of the private teaching institute under its own name on September 26, 2014. Accordingly, the succeeding intervenor BK of Plaintiff X and Z, and the succeeding intervenor BL of Plaintiff AK, from the first day of pleading on December 19, 2014 to the first day of pleading on November 6, 2014, were succeeded to the instant lawsuit by stating an application for participation in the succession, and Plaintiff AK additionally withdrawn from the instant lawsuit with the consent of the Defendant.”

The 10th column of the judgment of the first instance court is the "registration of change (report)" in the 10th column.

The 156 won(15.0% increase) "156 won(15.0% increase)" is considered as "156 won(15.0% increase)."

The 18th session of the first instance court judgment is "infinite".

However, it is reasonable to determine whether the amount of a branch equivalent to 70% from the lowest tuition fees to the highest tuition fees as a result of the examination of the above standards set by the defendant of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, which is higher than the standard set by the defendant, exceeds the tuition fees, or the price increase rate per itself, the rise rate of tuition fees compared to the previous year, the teaching time, the peculiarity of the region, and the