1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The appeal cost arises between the Plaintiff Educational Foundation A and the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs to this court is added, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding paragraph (4)) is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding paragraph (4)) except for the evidence attached to the judgment that there is no error as alleged by the plaintiffs. Thus, it is cited in accordance

The defendant in the 8th 17th eth 17th eth eth eth "the plaintiff, A, T, etc."

9. On the 9th page, the “date of the closing of argument in the instant case” shall be deemed “date of the closing of argument in the first instance trial.”

13. Up to 14 pages 14, 13, 9, 13.

In light of the relevant provisions in the Private School Act and the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the board of directors is legitimate only when the board of directors attends the board of directors and makes a resolution, and that a resolution by a written resolution is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du7724, Aug. 21, 2008). The resolution by the board of directors that prepares false meeting minutes of the board of directors without holding the actual board of directors constitutes an inevitable invalidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du9290, Sept. 6, 2007). (3) Some of the former directors of this case delegated the board of directors with the deliberation and voting rights as directors, and the remaining directors except the plaintiff B participated in the act of signing the meeting minutes of the board of directors without holding the board of directors, and the plaintiff B neglected the operation of the board of directors of this case as a serious violation of the Private School Act.