beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, based on its reasoning, determined that the part of the grounds of appeal No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 as indicated in the lower judgment, which violated the period of public notice at the time of new employment in 2009 and the part which did not undergo the resolution of the board of directors at the time of new employment in 201 can be the grounds of disposition for cancellation
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the grounds for disposition in the cancellation of approval of taking office.
2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3
A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff violated the period of public announcement at the time of new employment in 2009 among the reasons for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and the part which was not resolved by the board of directors at the time of new employment in 2011 constitutes “a case where it is obvious that it cannot be corrected” as stipulated in Article 20-2(2) of the Private School Act, and thus, the Defendant may revoke the approval of the appointment of the Plaintiff even without the request for correction of each of the above reasons. In full view of the circumstances in the judgment, the lower court did not err by abusing the
B. (1) The main text of Article 20-2(2) of the Private School Act provides that the approval of the appointment of an officer of a school foundation for reasons of violation of the Private School Act may be revoked only in the case where the competent authority fails to comply with the request of the school foundation for correction on the grounds of the request for correction. However, in the case where it is apparent that it is impossible to correct it even if the request for correction is made, or where the degree of corruption, such as accounting fraud, embezzlement, bribery, etc., is serious, the approval of the officer in office may be revoked without the request for correction, and the detailed contents thereof.