Creditor (Law Firm KEL, Attorneys Ansan-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

School Foundation and the Private Teaching Institutes (Law Firm Haak, Attorneys Lee Han-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon District Court Order 2013Kahap24 dated April 29, 2013

1. The creditor's appeal is dismissed;

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the creditor.

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The effect of the resolution of the board of directors of the debtor on March 21, 2013 shall be suspended until the debtor's principal case of claim for confirmation of nullity of the resolution of the creditor's

1. cite the decision of the court of first instance;

The reasoning for this case is that the court’s reasoning is as stated in the reasoning for the decision of the first instance except for adding “educational directors as stipulated in Article 21(3) of the Private School Act” in the front of “educational directors” in the 3th 16th Myeon, and adding the following contents, thereby citing it as is in accordance with Article 203-3(1) of the Civil Execution Rule.

【Additional Contents】

A. The obligee stated that the explanatory statement attached by the obligor sent a written request for approval of the board of directors to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology is unlawful since it was not entirely notified to the obligee prior to the resolution of the board of directors of this case, it did not give the obligee an opportunity to explain the reason for dismissal. Ultimately, the obligee asserts that the resolution of the board of directors of this case was unlawful because it did not provide the obligee with an opportunity to explain the reason for dismissal.

However, it is difficult to view that there is no illegality even if the creditor was not given an opportunity to vindicate at the time of the resolution of the board of directors of this case. Furthermore, according to the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, it is difficult to view that all the grounds for dismissal of the creditor should be specified in the request for convening the board of directors. According to the overall purport of records and interrogations, the creditor's board of directors held after the creditor refused the request for convening the board of directors by Nonparty 2, etc., pointed out that the creditor's meeting of the debtor, who was held after the creditor refused the request by Nonparty 2, etc., has been pointed out "discruptive personnel affairs and involvement in school administration due to abuse," and the creditor has explained that the above mentioned facts were stated. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the above grounds for dismissal also

B. The creditor emphasizes that the debtor, through Nonparty 2, 3, and 4, etc., had been subject to a decision of dismissal from office in the jurisdiction of the church of the preliminary church, and that the creditor should be dismissed, and that in the manner of injecting the contents of the wrong decision of disciplinary authority of the debtor to the director of the board of directors, such as emphasizing the decision of dismissal from office in the letter of notice of convening the board of directors and the notice of convening the board of directors, as well as emphasizing the fact of the decision of dismissal from office as the letter of convening the board of directors and the notice of convening the board of directors, the creditor puts up a false appearance that it is an inappropriate person to become the chief director of the school juristic person. As a result, the debtor's director made the resolution of the board of directors of this case based on wrong

C. The creditor asserts that the resolution of the board of directors of this case against the creditor's reform policy is unfair because it is based on the improper intent of the opposing power to identify the creditor as the chief director. However, the creditor's assertion is insufficient to prove it. Thus, the creditor's above assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

If so, the first instance court's decision is legitimate, and the creditor's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Lee Sang-sung (Presiding Judge)