1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the supplement of the following judgments, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The defendant's assertion ① The claim for revocation of the approval of taking office of this case filed by the plaintiffs was accepted in the appellate court (the prior suit of this case), but the prior suit of this case was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the Private School Act and thus the revocation of the approval of taking office of the plaintiffs is lawful. Thus, the defendant's provisional director appointment disposition of this case based on this premise is legitimate.

② Even if it is recognized that the Plaintiffs are entitled to elect the company later as directors, it is impossible to select the company later on the sole basis of the Plaintiffs as the quorum to elect the company later is not secured.

This constitutes a case where a school juristic person is deemed unable to normally operate the school juristic person because it fails to fill the vacancy of directors, and the defendant can appoint a provisional director pursuant to Article 25 (1) 1 of the Private School Act in such a case.

Therefore, the provisional director appointment disposition of this case is legitimate in this respect.

③ Even if it is possible for the Plaintiffs to seek revocation of the instant provisional directors appointment disposition, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs may seek revocation of the entire provisional directors appointment disposition by up to seven persons, beyond seeking revocation of the provisional directors appointment disposition by three persons corresponding thereto.

B. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited in this judgment, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted in entirety, taking into account the evidence adopted by the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 8 (including a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1. According to the above evidence, the plaintiffs.