(a) Legal status and scope of authority of a person appointed as a director or an acting director of a school juristic person by the decision of provisional disposition;

(b) Whether an acting director of a school juristic person is entitled to participate in the resolution by the board of directors which appoints an agent after such agent;

(c) Whether the failure to appoint a director or an invalid act of appointing a director has been cured by an approval of the supervisory authority for his appointment.

A. Provisional disposition, which determines a temporary position under Article 714(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, is a provisional and temporary measure to eliminate or prevent the risk that the right holder may face in the event of a dispute in relation to the relationship of rights, and is merely an emergency measure to maintain a provisional legal peace until a final judgment of the dispute is rendered. If a director of a school foundation is appointed by a provisional disposition decision, the representative is merely in a temporary position to act as an agent for the principal of the case. Thus, a school foundation can carry out only the affairs belonging to the ordinary affairs of the school foundation within the extent of maintaining and managing the school foundation as it is in the previous position. Except as otherwise provided in the provisional disposition decision, the act that does not belong to the ordinary affairs of the school foundation, such as changing the composition of the board of directors, which is the basis of the school foundation, is contrary to the essence

B. Permission to allow a director’s acting director to participate in the board of directors on the grounds that he/she can resign from the board of directors or cancel his/her term of office. It would result in a change in the temporary position determined in the initial provisional disposition order as a result of the extinguishment of the legal relationship itself, which is the content of the dispute, by itself. In addition, in cases where a person whose duties are suspended due to a provisional disposition resigns and retires, the legal relationship in the subject of the provisional disposition is no longer necessary to maintain the pertinent provisional disposition after the termination of the dispute. This is a cause for revocation of provisional disposition due to change in circumstances. However, even though the provisional disposition remains only in the form, if it is deemed that a director’s acting director can participate in the resolution of the board of directors appointing a person who is the latter of the agent, this cannot be said to be against the original purpose of provisional disposition.

C. Article 20(2) of the Private School Act and approval of the appointment of a director by a supervisory authority for a school foundation’s articles of incorporation is a supplementary administrative act that enables the completion of legal effect by supplementing an act of appointing a director by a school foundation. Thus, in a case where an act of appointing a director by a school foundation which is a basic act is not established or null and void, the act of appointing a director cannot be deemed null and void even if approval of the appointment of a supervisory authority was granted.

(a)Article 714(2) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 20(2) of the Private School Act;

(a)B. (c) Supreme Court Decision 94Da12364 delivered on April 14, 1995 (dong). Supreme Court Decision 86Nu152 delivered on August 18, 1987 (Gong1987,1472)

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Plaintiffs Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendant 1’s Intervenor Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for the defendant’s intervenor’s intervenor

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na9073 delivered on January 20, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held the defendant 1's non-party 2's remaining office as the members of the board of directors as of July 14, 1989, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, and the plaintiffs. The defendant 2's defendant 9's remaining office office was 89Ka32 on July 14, 1989 that the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 5 were appointed as the chief director and the non-party 9's new director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9th director's 9.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The provisional disposition, which establishes a temporary position under Article 714(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, is a temporary and temporary measure to remove or prevent the risk that the right holder may face in the event of dispute in relation to the legal relationship, and is merely an emergency measure to maintain the legal peace temporarily until the final judgment of the dispute is rendered. Thus, if a person who acts as an agent of a director of a school foundation by a provisional disposition is appointed under the provisional disposition decision, he/she is merely in a temporary position to act as an agent for the principal of the school foundation as he/she is in a temporary position to act as an agent for the principal, so he/she should be able to act as an agent for the principal of the school foundation within the extent that he/she maintains and manages the principal foundation as in the previous case. Unless otherwise provided in the provisional disposition decision, changing the composition itself of the board of directors, which is the basis of the school foundation, should be contrary to the nature of such provisional disposition. Accordingly, it is a case where a director of the school foundation directly appoints an agent after the resignation of the principal and then to act after the principal.

Furthermore, allowing a director's representative to participate in the board of directors on the ground that he/she can resign from the board of directors or cancel his/her term of office. It would result in a change in the temporary position determined in the initial provisional disposition order as a result of the extinguishment of the legal relationship itself, which is the content of the dispute, by himself/herself. In addition, in the case where a person whose performance of duties is suspended due to a provisional disposition as in this case, retires and retires, the legal relationship of the dispute subject to the provisional disposition is no longer necessary to maintain the provisional disposition after the termination of the dispute, and such a reason constitutes a cause for revocation of provisional disposition due to change in circumstances. However, if it is deemed that the director's representative can participate in the board of directors' resolution that appoints the latter as the agent, this would not be contrary to the original purpose of provisional disposition. This conclusion does not change because the time of appointment of the former director at the time of the resolution of the board of directors at this point is determined as the time of extinction of the future effect of provisional disposition.

Therefore, the non-party 6 and the non-party 7 and the non-party 9, who are the chief director acting for the defendant corporation, are not entitled to dismiss, resign or dismiss the directors, so the decision that the appointment of the former president and the director shall not be null and void, since the latter part of April 9, 1991 participated by the three acting directors and one of the original directors. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence or misapprehending the legal principles as to the appointment of the directors since the number of the directors of the defendant corporation at the time when the board of directors was held on April 9, 191, the number of the directors of the defendant corporation was not vacant as stipulated in the articles of incorporation, and the latter part of April 9, 191 and the appointment resolution of the directors cannot be made on April 9, 199, on the ground that the latter part of April 19, 191 and the latter part of April 9, 191 are null and void.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation employed by the court below as evidence, the above corporation has seven directors including the chief director (Article 13), the term of office of the directors shall be four years (Article 14), the appointment and dismissal of the directors shall be authorized by the supervisory authority after the resolution of the board of directors, and the appointment and dismissal of the directors shall be filled within two months, and the appointment of the officers such as the directors shall be completed two months prior to the expiration of the term of office, and the appointment of the directors shall be applied to the supervisory authority at least one month prior to the commencement of the term of office (Article 15).

Here, the meaning of "two months prior to the expiration of the term of office" which determined the time of appointment of an officer shall be deemed to have completed the procedure of appointment of an officer two months prior to the expiration of the term of office, and the application for the appointment of an officer to the supervisory authority pursuant to the procedure shall be completed at least one month prior

Therefore, since the appointment of directors under the articles of incorporation requires two months prior to the expiration of the term of office, the part of the judgment of the court below that held that even if the term of office of the non-party 2 director expires on June 19, 191 as asserted by the defendant joining the defendant's defendant, it cannot be appointed after the expiration of the two months prior to the expiration of the term of office on April 9, 191, is erroneous. However, as seen earlier, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below which accepted the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that the resolution by the board of directors dated April 9, 191 is null and void, and the above error of the court below did not affect any conclusion of the

4. As to the third ground for appeal

Article 20(2) of the Private School Act and approval of the appointment of a supervisory authority for a director of an incorporated school foundation by the articles of incorporation of the incorporated school foundation is a supplementary administrative act that enables the completion of legal effect by supplementing the appointment of a director of the incorporated school foundation. Thus, in a case where an act of appointing a director of the incorporated school foundation, which is a basic act, is not established or null and void, such act cannot be deemed null and void even if the appointment of a director was approved by the supervisory authority (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu152, Aug. 18, 1987). The grounds for appeal cannot be accepted by examining the dissenting opinion.

5. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)