Before the remand of the appeal by the plaintiffs, this court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal, and in the case of remanding the plaintiffs' appeal, the appeal is dismissed with respect to the part of the defendant's claim for revocation of the provisional director's appointment disposition against K, and only the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of revocation of appointment of the defendant's provisional director with respect to the defendant's claim for the defendant's appeal against the intervenor, E, G, H, I

Accordingly, the scope of this Court’s adjudication after remanding the case is limited to the part of the Defendant’s claim for cancellation of the disposition that the Intervenor appointed as a director of the school juristic person B on August 10, 2011, to the extent that the Defendant appointed the Intervenor D, the Intervenor F, E, G, H, I, I, and J as a director of the school juristic person B.

Details of the disposition

A school juristic person B (hereinafter “B”) is a juristic person that establishes and operates a school of the C University, etc. B, which was operated by M on May 8, 1990, attached the minutes of the board of directors meeting to the Minister of Education (hereinafter “B’s board of directors held on April 28, 1990 to the effect that “B’s board of directors held a board of directors on April 28, 1990 and reappointed M the term of office of which expires to the chief director and directors, and subsequently appointed T as a director instead of S that died,” and the Minister of Education applied for the approval of the replacement of directors for the above directors.

6.9. As a result of the approval of the appointment, B Council was composed of the above directors and U.S. directors appointed as directors on November 9, 1989.

However, in 192, it is difficult to find out the problem of dealing with the students of the department and the decline of full-time instructors after the abolition of the V department at C University.