A. Legal nature of a disposition of approval for convening a board of directors by the supervisory authority under Article 17(4) of the Private School Act (=Supplementary administrative act);

B. Whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of a disposition of approval for convening a board of directors where there is a dispute over the validity of the board of directors resolution due to a defect in the procedures for convening a board of directors called (negative)

A. Where a disposition of approval to convene a board of directors by the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 17(4) of the Private School Act is a supplementary administrative act that completes the legal effect of convening a board of directors which serves as a premise for the resolution of board of directors by granting the authority to convene a board of directors to a director who is not the chief director, and where the convocation of a board of directors, which is a basic act, is null and void due to its nature, even if approval is granted, it cannot be deemed valid for convening a board of directors,

B. Where there is a dispute as to the effect of the resolution by the board of directors due to defects in the procedures for convening the board of directors after a director convened by the board of directors and a resolution of the board of directors, seeking the cancellation of a resolution by the board of directors which is merely a premise of the resolution by the board of directors cannot be deemed a valid and appropriate means of dispute resolution, barring special circumstances.

(a) Article 17(4) of the Private School Act, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [General] and Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [interest of a lawsuit] and Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [General Administrative Litigation Decision]

Supreme Court Decision 77Nu38 delivered on August 23, 197, 86Nu152 delivered on August 18, 1987 (Gong1987, 1472) 90Nu1557 delivered on June 14, 1991 (Gong191, 1939)

The Daejeon Institute of Education for the Supervision of School Foundation

Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu26579 delivered on September 3, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

Article 17 (4) of the Private School Act provides for the authority to convene a board of directors to a director who is not the chief director to convene a board of directors and completes the legal effect of convening a board of directors meeting which serves as a premise for the board of directors resolution. In a case where the act of convening a board of directors, which is a basic act, is null and void because it does not meet the legal requirements due to its nature, even if approval was granted, the convocation of board of directors meeting cannot be deemed valid, and the approval disposition itself does not have any legal effect. Thus, in a case where there is a dispute as to the validity of convening a board of directors meeting due to the defect in the convocation procedure of the board of directors meeting after the resolution of the board of directors was convened by the board of directors and the resolution of the board of directors, it cannot be deemed a valid and appropriate means to resolve the dispute, barring special circumstances.

In the same purport, the court below is just to determine that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it has no legal interest in the lawsuit, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles and lack of reasoning. The precedents cited by the plaintiff are different from the case, and it cannot be a proper precedent. The arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)