임원취임승인취소처분취소
2016Nu13647 Revocation of the approval of taking office
A
The Minister of Education
Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Guhap100873 Decided December 8, 2016
April 13, 2017
May 18, 2017
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On February 12, 2016, the defendant revoked the approval of taking office of the school foundation B against the plaintiff on February 12, 2016
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reason why the court's explanation concerning this case is "3) of the first instance court's 4th '3th '(2)', "5th 5th 4th 5th 5th 4th 5th 5th 5th 4th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 11, "7th 11th 8th 4th 8th 4th 8th 1st 2th 2th 2th 5th 2th 100, as well as addition of the contents under the second 2th 2th 1st 1st 5th 1st 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 20th 2th 20th 196
2. The addition;
[Supplementary to the Second Instance]
2) On October 31, 2015, the fifth board of directors in 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “third board of directors”): M (Acting on behalf of the president), J, L, K, the Plaintiff, and I.
【At the fifth meeting of the board of directors, I know that the plaintiff is aware that the corporation and university will receive an accounting audit, and if the audit is completed, I will still know that the corporation and university will be able to report to the 16.1). I will make up for the reservation up until the date of deliberation if there is no point after the audit is completed after the 16th meeting. I will make up for the reservation of the 16th meeting. If I will say that it is difficult for the school problem to be operated normally, it is not temporary director dispatch, and if I will make it difficult for the plaintiff to do so, I will make it difficult for the plaintiff to participate in the 6th meeting of the board of directors. Furthermore, it is possible to view that the plaintiff from the beginning of the 19th meeting to the 6th meeting of the board of directors to have no intention to implement the corrective order of this case. Furthermore, even if I would have agreed to the above 7th meeting of the board of directors through the defendant 2's second order, it is more likely that the plaintiff and the 6th meeting of the corrective order of this case.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.
Allowable judges of the presiding judge
Judges Oo-hee
Judges Park Jong-dae
1) It appears that the time limit for reporting the instant request for correction, 2015.11, 16.