1. The part of the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the approval for the appointment of directors shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 6, 1970, the Intervenor B’s Intervenor B (hereinafter “B”) opened and operated a school (on August 27, 1991, changed the name to B), which was first established as a school juristic person I (on August 27, 1991), J High School on March 4, 1971 (on March 4, 197), and L School on March 3, 1985 (on the present L High School).

B. The plaintiff was appointed as the president on January 18, 2006.

However, in the process of selecting three directors whose term of office expires as of August 19, 2009, July 2, 2011, and July 20, 201, the approval of taking office was revoked as to all the registered directors (five members, M,O, P) registered under Article 20-2 (1) 2 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 14154, May 29, 201; hereinafter the same) on December 21, 201, when the term of office of two directors (Plaintiff, M, N,O, P) is expected to expire, and it is no longer possible to operate a board of directors due to short of the quorum.

C. From February 13, 2012 to March 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) appointed seven persons, including Q, as temporary directors from February 13, 2012 to March 6, 2015; (b) made efforts to normalize; (c) but not normalization until the expiration of the term of office; and (d) appointed eight persons, including R, as temporary directors from March 7, 2015 to March 6, 2016.

On November 23, 2015, the Private School Dispute Mediation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Mediation Committee”) decided the ratio of appointment of a regular director (8) to 4 personnel recommended by S, 2 personnel recommended by Plaintiff side, 2 personnel recommended by side members in the school, and 1 personnel recommended by side members in the school (L, and 1 personnel in K, respectively). By the time of next opportunity (scheduled to December 28, 2015), the Committee deliberated and resolved to the effect that the number of regular directors distributed to each recommendation subject shall be recommended as candidates.

E. On December 18, 2015, the Plaintiff requested a review of the results of the deliberation by the pertinent conciliation committee. On December 21, 2015, the Defendant submitted a plan for the promotion of normalization, excluding two recommended persons from the Plaintiff to the conciliation committee.

(f).