If a director of a social welfare foundation is appointed as a new director due to the expiration of his/her term of office after the revocation of a disposition to permit the appointment of a director, whether there is a benefit of lawsuit seeking the revocation

If the defendant, who is the head of Busan Metropolitan City, revoked the permission for the appointment of directors of the social welfare foundation for the plaintiffs, appointed the temporary directors ex officio pursuant to Article 11 (2) of the Social Welfare Services Act, and these temporary directors appointed the corporation's regular directors on the day when the term of office of the plaintiffs expired and appointed them as directors of the corporation, the plaintiffs cannot return to directors even if the permission for the cancellation of the above cancellation of the appointment of directors is revoked, and thus there is no interest in the lawsuit seeking the cancellation

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 16(2) of the Social Welfare Services Act

Attorney Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee et al.

Attorney Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Busan High Court Decision 87 Gu41 delivered on October 20, 1989

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant, after cancelling the disposition of permission for the appointment of directors against the plaintiffs, appointed temporary representative director's studio, temporary executive director's studio, temporary director's studio, temporary sewage, maximum superintendent's studio, and regular sick disease on January 6, 1989, each of them was appointed on January 6, 1989 by the temporary director's regular director's studio iron, sewage, director's studio, director's studio, directors' studio, and studio studio as of January 6, 1989, and that the term of office of the directors was terminated on January 6, 1989. In such a case, the plaintiffs cannot return to the director's office even if the defendant's disposition was revoked, and thus, the plaintiffs' lawsuit was dismissed on the ground that there was no interest in the lawsuit, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles like theory.

The appeal shall not be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)