Applicant (Attorney Noh Jeong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Respondent (Law Firm Dongun, Attorneys Park Jong-ju et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 2, 2003

1. The motion for provisional disposition of this case shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant;

On January 19, 2001, the respondent shall not perform his/her duties as the chief director or director of a corporation other than the applicant's application until confirmation of absence of a resolution by the board of directors and confirmation of absence of president's status, and until confirmation of absence of president's status has become final and conclusive. During the period of suspension of the above duties, the respondent shall not perform his/her duties as the chief director or director's representative of the board of directors during the period of suspension of the above duties.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of evidence Nos. 1, 3, 15, and the lawsuit No. 6-3:

A. An entity other than the applicant is a school foundation established for the purpose of conducting higher education and general education on the basis of the educational ideology of the Republic of Korea, which establishes and operates (the name of a school omitted), (the name of a school omitted), (the name of a school attached to a college of education, and (the name of a school omitted);

B. The applicant was appointed as a director of a corporation other than the applicant on October 1, 1998, but retired on August 31, 2002. During the period of appointment of the above director, the applicant held office as the president of (the name of the school omitted).

C. On January 19, 2001, the respondent was appointed as the president at the 466th meeting of a corporation, other than the applicant, which was held on January 19, 2001, and the 478th meeting of the said corporation held on August 9, 2002 was reappointed as the president, and is serving as the president of the said

2. Applicant's assertion

The Claimant asserts that the Respondent’s resolution at the 466th board of directors of the non-applicant corporation, who appointed the Respondent as the chief director, is nonexistent or invalid due to the following reasons. Thus, the Respondent’s unlawful execution of duties based on the above resolution is sought as provisional disposition in order to prevent

A. The board of directors held by the non-applicant 1 as the chief director and carried out the procedure. However, the non-applicant 1 was not legally designated as the chief director according to the procedure set out in the articles of incorporation of the non-applicant 1. Thus, the above board of directors is procedural defect that took place by convening a non-qualified person.

B. The 466th board of directors was a director, who was not the applicant and the respondent, and the non-applicant 1, the non-applicant 2, the non-applicant 3, and the non-applicant 4 were present, but the non-applicant 2 and the non-applicant 4 had already resigned from the office of directors. Thus, the board of directors was the only four directors, and the number of the non-applicant 4 directors was less than five.

C. Article 33 of the articles of incorporation of a corporation other than the filing of an application provides that the chief director or director shall not participate in the resolution on the “matters concerning himself/herself in the appointment and dismissal of officers and the principal of a school” but the respondent violated this provision and participated in the resolution on the appointment of himself/herself as the chief director at the

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. Main Safety Defense of the respondent

As to the above argument of the applicant, the respondent raises a defense that the application for provisional disposition of this case is unlawful due to the following reasons.

(1) On August 31, 2002, the applicant retired from office as a director of a corporation other than the applicant company, and currently is merely a professor of the (name omitted) operated by the said corporation. The safety of the board of directors of the said corporation at the 466th meeting of the said corporation was accepted and deliberated upon the resignation of the directors other than the applicant and 6 other than the applicant, and the present situation of the corporation other than the applicant was not a case where it is necessary to recognize the right to work until the expiration or resignation of the director. Thus, the applicant is not an interested party to dispute the validity of the resolution of the board of directors at the 466th meeting.

(2) Since the Respondent was appointed as the chief executive officer after the 466th board of directors was appointed as the chief executive officer, and the 478th board of directors held on August 9, 2002 were appointed as the chief executive officer and the chief executive officer again at the 466th board of directors’ meeting, the Respondent had no interest in filing a lawsuit to seek confirmation of past legal relations, not current legal relations.

B. Determination

(2) On August 31, 2002, the applicant was dismissed from office as the above. According to the statements Nos. 1, 3, and 15, the board of directors of the corporation other than the applicant held on January 19, 201, the board of directors of the 466th board of directors, who submitted the resignation of directors on December 23, 200, and the 6th president on December 26, 200, who submitted the resignation of directors, and the 20th president and the 20th director. The 20th director of the corporation other than the applicant, who did not have been appointed from office as the 20th director (Article 23). The 20th director of the corporation, who did not have been appointed from office as the 20th director's 16th director's 3th director's 4th director's 4th director's 6th director's 20th director's 20th director's 196th director's 20.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the applicant's application of this case is illegal as it is by a person who is not qualified as the applicant, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)