1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall include the part resulting from the participation in the appeal.

Details of the disposition

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal and addition of some contents as follows; and (b) such reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

At the third bottom of the judgment of the first instance court, "Z" was dismissed as "AF (the board of directors of the Intervenor, due to the death of the AF, appointed a new director of the Z on June 20, 207, and the defendant approved that the Z is a director of the Z on September 7, 2007)". The whole contents of "F." in the fourth fifth sentence of the judgment of the first instance court, "...... the Ministry of Education decided to appoint a regular director on November 9, 2010 for the reasons for the removal of provisional directors, including the former director, members of the school and the Ministry of Education, by November 30 of the same year, and by the request of interested parties such as the former director, members of the school, and the Ministry of Education to recommend the candidates, "No later than the deadline," or "No later than the 5th sentence directors," and "No later than the 1st sentence of the NA," the previous NA directors including the 1st sentence directors, and the 5th sentence directors.

The Plaintiffs’ assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition is unlawful by abusing discretion for the following reasons.

The so-called G Normalization Promotion Committee representing the plaintiffs and the members in the school (hereinafter referred to as the "Promotion Committee") shall select and recommend 18 candidates for the regular directors of the intervenor.