A. The separate provisions of Article 52(2) of the former Civil Act

(b) Authority to convene meetings of the board of directors;

(c) Effect of the decision of the court which appoints the president of the Incorporated Foundation;

A. If the board of directors shall be convened in a contribution act by the chief director and the chief director shall convene a meeting with the purpose of the meeting specified and provided that the meeting shall be held if the former chief director is a separate provision under Article 52(2) of the former Civil Code, and thus, if a former chief director dies without designating a representative director for a contribution act, the former chief director shall be elected from his own voluntary meeting from his own perspective of corporate self-defensor and have the chief director convene the meeting by the prescribed method of the contribution act.

B. If a contribution act of an incorporated foundation appoints a chief director to be elected by the director and provides that the appointment of the chief director shall be made by the approval of the Minister for Delivery, the court does not have the authority to appoint the chief director (the appointment of the chief director shall be made separately) and the decision to appoint

Article 52 (2) of the former Civil Act

Permanent Research Institute as an incorporated foundation

Minister of Delivery

Daegu High Court of the first instance, etc.

According to the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute’s contribution act, the board of directors was convened by the board of directors under Article 18(2) of the same Act, and Article 19 of the same Act provides that the board of directors shall be held from three directors to upon the request of the board of directors for the purpose of the meeting. Thus, the above provision constitutes a so-called separate group, which is held in Article 52(2) of the Gu residents’ Act. However, in this case, since a director is appointed in addition to the regular board of directors at the time of the convocation of the proposal, a new board of directors is appointed in addition to the regular board of directors at the time of the convocation of the proposal, and the meeting shall be convened by the board of directors in the manner prescribed in Article 19 after the approval was made from the corporate self-defensive perspective, and the separate meeting or this meeting shall not be convened by the board of directors, and the appointment of the board of directors shall be null and void, and therefore, the appointment of the board of directors shall be null and void, as stated in the ground of appeal.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the act of contribution of the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute, one president is elected from the board of directors in violation of Article 13 and appointed from the board of directors with the authorization of the head of the literature delivery department. The requirement that the president is elected from the board of directors should first be elected from the board of directors and shall be qualified by the head of the letter delivery department for the person elected from the board of directors. Thus, the requirement that the president is qualified by the head of the letter delivery department. Thus, the appointment of the director belongs to the administrative act of the head of the letter delivery department, that is, the administrative act of the head of the office, so it is reasonable that the court has no authority to appoint the principal director of the foundation corporation and the appointment of the director is invalid as a judgment of the court in violation of the Civil Act or the contribution act. If the decision of the court is valid, this would result in infringing not only the rights of the director as a judicial authority, but also the fundamental spirit of the third party system, even if the decision of appointment became final and conclusive, it shall not be null and void.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)