(b) Whether there is a benefit to seek the revocation of a disposition of approval for the appointment of an officer by the supervisory authority or the confirmation of invalidity thereof on the ground that the appointment of an officer by the school juristic person is not established or invalidated

B. In a case where there is a defect in the act of appointing an officer under private law, which is a basic act, and the validity of such appointment is disputed, it is a civil lawsuit, aside from seeking the revocation or invalidity confirmation of such appointment, to seek the revocation or invalidity confirmation of the appointment approval disposition by the supervisory authority on the ground of the failure or invalidity of the basic act, and barring special circumstances, there is no legal interest in filing a lawsuit, barring special circumstances.

The total litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Since the approval of the appointment of an officer by the supervisory authority for an officer of a school juristic person under Article 20 (2) of the Private School Act is a supplementary administrative act that enables the completion of the law by supplementing the act of appointing an officer of a school juristic person, where the act of appointing an officer of a school juristic person which is a basic act is not established or null and void, even though the approval of the appointment of an officer by the supervisory authority was granted, the invalid appointment cannot

In other words, the supervisory authority's approval of the appointment of an officer of a school juristic person is a supplementary act that completes the legal effect of the appointment of an officer, on the premise that there is a valid appointment of an officer under the private law of the board of directors of the school juristic person.

Therefore, in a case where there is a dispute as to the validity of the appointment of officers due to defects in the act of appointing officers, which is a basic act, as a civil lawsuit, seeking the cancellation or invalidity of the appointment as a civil lawsuit, and on the ground of the failure or invalidity of the basic act, the revocation or invalidity of the appointment approval disposition by the supervisory authority cannot be said to have legal interest in the lawsuit, barring special circumstances.

According to the records, the plaintiff's basic act of the approval of taking office of this case, i.e., the resolution of the board of directors and the procedures for convening the board of directors at the time of the original adjudication, which had significant defects in the composition of the board of directors and the procedures for convening the board of directors at the time of the original adjudication, and thus, the plaintiff asserts that the approval of taking office of this case, which is premised on the existence of the resolution, is null and void as a matter of course, is claiming the revocation or invalidity of the approval of taking office of this case. Furthermore, prior to the filing of the lawsuit, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the approval of taking office of this case, which is the basic act of the approval of taking office of this case, with the Suwon District Court, and filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the appointment of an officer, which is the basic act of the approval of taking office of this case, and it is evident that the case is still pending

Nevertheless, it is unlawful for the court below to dismiss the plaintiff's claim after entering a hearing on the merits with excessive points. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the ground that the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. Total costs of lawsuit are to be borne by the losing party.

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)