2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiffs to the following arguments after the first instance court’s decision No. 12, 12, 12, 200; and (b) the same is accepted by Article 8(2

2. The addition;

In addition, the plaintiffs also stated that the notice of the hearing issued by the defendant on August 27, 2015, which was sent by the defendant to the plaintiffs as prior notice prior to the hearing, is "the civil petition investigation and the failure of the Board of Audit and Inspection to implement the corrective order regarding the disposition of the audit results." The counter party to the above corrective order is G, and the plaintiffs did not have been notified of the above corrective order, and it was not known that the notice of the execution of the hearing was the cause of the above disposition. Thus, the above disposition of this case is in violation of the prior notice procedure prior to the hearing

However, on April 2, 2015, the fact that the Defendant notified the president, who is the representative of the school foundation G Council, of the instant result of the civil petition investigation and the request for correction of the disposition of the audit results, as the above was recognized. Accordingly, the above request for correction was lawfully notified to the school foundation G council to which the Plaintiffs belong. As alleged by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs did not know of the contents of the request, on the ground that the Plaintiffs were not aware of the internal anti-ordination among directors of the board of directors or the duties of the Plaintiffs as directors

Therefore, as long as the above corrective measure is legally notified to the board of directors to which the plaintiffs belong, it cannot be deemed as unlawful in violation of the procedure of prior notice of the above corrective measure, on the ground that the above corrective measure was not specifically stated in the prior notice, or that the above corrective measure was not individually notified to the plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit.

Judges Invitations

Judges Lee Jae-in