1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

We examine the defendant's defense that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

The following facts are recognized in light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap 10, Eul 1-1 through 3, Eul 2-1, and Eul 2.

① On July 18, 2014, the Plaintiff opened a board of directors on July 18, 2014, and resolved on the instant lawsuit against the Defendant.

The above board of directors participated in F, G, H, I, J, K, L, etc., and approved the above agenda by F, G, H, I, K, and L except J.

Directors M and N were not the directors.

② On February 9, 2011, K was appointed as a director at the board of directors of the Plaintiff’s 420 meeting.

After that, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Superintendent of an Office of Education's refusal to approve K's taking office is confirmed on January 27, 2014 and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Superintendent of an Office of Education's revocation disposition is finalized on January 27, 2014.

3. 14. Recognizing K's inauguration.

However, K is the preceding year.

3. Around April, 300, the Plaintiff expressed his intention to resign from office.

③ On June 10, 2014, L was appointed as a director at the board of directors of the Plaintiff’s 446 meeting.

The above board of directors attended the meeting of F, M, G, H, and K, and decided to appoint L directors.

④ According to the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff, the number of directors shall be nine including the chief director, and the board of directors shall adopt resolutions with the consent of a majority of the total directors.

(Articles 2(2) and 13 subparag. 1 of the Articles of Incorporation. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the appointment approval of the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Seoul Special Metropolitan City takes effect at the same time as the appointment approval of the Superintendent of the Office of Education, and therefore,

In addition, the board of directors at the 446th meeting of the 446th meeting is only four directors, including F, M, G, and H, if not qualified K, and the above resolution is null and void due to lack of a quorum. Therefore, L is not eligible as a director of the Plaintiff.

As a result, the board of directors of the 448th board of directors agreed to the instant lawsuit is only four directors, including F, G, H, I, etc., and accordingly, the instant lawsuit was brought.