1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. School Foundation H (hereinafter “H”) is established and operated on March 25, 1961 by establishing and operating I Middle Schools and I High Schools.

B. The full number of officers of H is eight directors (including one chief director), two auditors, and the plaintiffs are officers of H and their positions and their terms of office are as follows:

The name title title No. 1 A president and directors, from February 26, 2014 to February 25, 2018, 2018, B directors from February 26, 2014 to February 3, 2018, from February 25, 2018, C directors from February 26, 2014 to February 4, 2018, from February 26, 2012 to February 5, 2016, E directors from February 26, 2012 to February 5, 2016, from February 26, 2014 to February 6, 2018 to February 26, 2018.

As a result of the Defendant’s audit of H from June 29, 2015 to July 10, 2015, from August 25, 2015 to August 31, 2015, the Defendant issued a prior notice of approval for taking office for all 10 executives of H’s fundamental property for profit (cash) (hereinafter “grounds for Disposition 1”), ② Illegal operation of H board of directors (illegal operation, such as convening the board of directors and preparing minutes of the board of directors; hereinafter “grounds for Disposition 2”), ③ Non-compliance with the convening date of the board of directors; hereinafter “grounds for Disposition 2”), ③ Non-compliance with the convening date of the board of directors’ meeting; and (i) use of the permanent resident and founder office of HJ (operation in school operation; hereinafter “grounds for Disposition 3”; and (ii) referring to the grounds for Disposition 1 to 3 and hereinafter “each of the instant grounds for Disposition”).

After undergoing the hearing on December 1, 2015, the Defendant revoked the approval of taking office for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On January 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on the grounds that the 10 Plaintiffs among the 10 executives of H constituted Article 20-2(1)1 of the Private School Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

- improper operation of basic property (cash) for the reasons of disposition 1 of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Acts and subordinate statutes - H investment in corporate bonds that do not guarantee the principal of KRW 1.2 billion in cash without permission of the Office of Education but do not fall under the scope of basic property for profit - The plaintiffs have faithfully fulfilled their property.