임시이사 선임처분 취소
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. A. School Foundation I (hereinafter “I”) was established and operated by the deceased L on January 18, 1964 by MU, NU, six special schools, two kindergartens, etc.
B. At around 1993, I, with respect to the appointment of the president of MU, had a dispute between the members in the academic world [the dispute between IO(the wife of the deceased P) and Q (P andO)].
On February 22, 1994, the defendant revoked the approval of the appointment of directors for all officers of I and appointed a temporary director.
The defendant has replaced the temporary directors whose term has expired as new temporary directors.
C. On November 1, 201, the Private School Dispute Mediation Committee (hereinafter “Private Sector”) decided to appoint the Plaintiffs (O) as regular directors, Q, R (R), and S (Defendant Recommendation) as temporary directors. Accordingly, the Defendant appointed regular directors (term: from November 1, 201 to October 31, 201) and temporary directors accordingly.
On October 31, 2012, the Defendant appointed U as a temporary director on November 8, 2012, following the resolution of the subcommittee at the expiration of the term of office on October 31, 2012
[U] A disposition to appoint temporary directors was revoked on the grounds that the grounds for appointing temporary directors of I have been eliminated (Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap43246, Seoul High Court 2013Nu15912). S director died on December 30, 2012.
On March 14, 2014, the Defendant revoked the approval of taking office of Plaintiffs, Q and R on the ground that “The dispute between executives seriously obstruct the operation of the school, fails to appoint a vacant officer, fails to appoint a principal of a school who has been established and operated, and the major pending issues of a school related to the follow-up appointment of a temporary director whose term of office has expired.”
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above approval of taking office against the plaintiffs.
The court of the first instance shall respect the autonomy of the school juristic person on November 20, 2014 so that the revocation of the appointment of an officer shall not be abused, and some of the reasons for the disposition shall not be recognized.