학교법인임원취임승인취소처분취소
1. All appeals by the plaintiffs against J are dismissed.
2. All remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
3...
1. The first instance court did not render a decision as to whether to permit participation by J, K, L, and M, but did not render a decision as to each request for participation by J, K, L, and M. In rendering a decision, the J’s request for participation was permitted, and the remainder of the request was rejected, and entered in the text of the judgment. The Plaintiffs appealed as to the part regarding the permission for participation by J.
The judgment of the assistant participant shall not be deemed unlawful because it was judged together with the judgment on the merits of the lawsuit subject to participation. In such cases, the party against whom the participation was rejected may immediately appeal the final judgment, and thus, the party against whom the participation was rejected may immediately appeal the final judgment, may, by a ruling, appeal against the immediate appeal or in fact, not
(See Supreme Court Decision 4294No222 delivered on December 21, 1961). Under the premise of this legal principle, the fact that the plaintiffs' appeal concerning this part of the appeal is examined, and that the J withdraws from the application for intervention on the fifth day for pleading of the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the same time is obvious, and therefore
2. The reasoning of the court's explanation as to the merits of this case is as follows, except for the addition of a judgment on a new argument in the trial or modification of a part of the reasoning of the judgment in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the above reasoning. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
The Defendant’s defense on this case’s safety defense was affirmed in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the board of directors filed by the J against the N Teaching Institute, on December 8, 2003 and May 3, 2006, that each of the resolution of the board of directors was null and void. Thus, the Plaintiffs did not have any legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition of this case, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit of this case is unlawful.
However, a petition for invalidation.