이사선임처분취소 청구
1. On November 22, 2016, the Defendant appointed F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and N,O, P, and Q as a director of the R Research Institute, which is a school law, on June 15, 2017.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. 1) A school foundation (hereinafter referred to as “RA”) such as the appointment of ad hoc director of the RA.
(1) On November 14, 2011, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the approval of taking office of the Plaintiff E, D, C, B, AI, AH8, on the ground that there was an obstacle to the operation of a school due to disputes between executives, etc., and the Plaintiff A was appointed a temporary director on July 22, 2011, on the following grounds: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22320, Nov. 14, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 23568, Dec. 22, 2011>
B. At the 118th meeting held on December 28, 2015, the Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor decided that the grounds for the appointment of temporary directors were resolved most, and that the implementation of the normalization would be possible if the financial part is resolved. 2) The Defendant Intervenor decided that the recommendation of open directors (previous directors V, AE, and AH) will be recognized in order to promote the normalization of the RA at the 123th meeting held on May 23, 2016, and that the ratio of the appointment of directors (12) would be four persons recommended by the first president (previous directors E, D, C, and B), four persons recommended by the first president (former directors V, E, AE, AH, and AI), four persons recommended by the first school principal (former directors E, AE, AH, one person recommended by the competent authorities, one person recommended by the members recommended by the domestic authorities, and three persons recommended by the number of directors each by the number of candidates allocated.
3) Accordingly, the defendant, the principal of the first school, the members of the school, and the assistant intervenor of the defendant recommended the candidates for directors to the defendant's assistant intervenor, but did not recommend the candidates for directors on the side of the first president. 4) The defendant assistant intervenor of the defendant did not continuously recommend the candidates for directors on the side of the first president. 8 (F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M) except the recommendation of the first president at the 127th meeting held on October 24, 2016.