logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2010.12.10 2009구합40469
학교법인임원취임승인취소처분취소
Text

1. Recognizing J as a supplementary intervenor for the defendant, and denying K, L and M’s participation.

2. The plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Determination on the application for intervention

A. In order to intervene in a case to assist one of the parties in a specific litigation case, there must be an interest in the result of the relevant lawsuit. The term "interest" refers to a legal interest, not in fact, economic or emotional interest, and it refers to a case where the judgment is subject to res judicata or executory power of the relevant lawsuit, or where the judgment does not directly affect the effect of the relevant lawsuit, it refers to a case where the legal status of a person who intends to participate in an assistance is determined on the premise of the judgment.

B. (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156 Decided April 26, 2007).

We look back to the instant case and review the J’s application for intervention.

According to the evidence No. 4, J recognizes the fact that the approval of taking office of the plaintiffs was revoked and then the appointment was made as a temporary director of the NF on December 9, 2009. Thus, if the revocation of the approval of taking office of the plaintiffs, the ground for the appointment of temporary director against J ceases to exist, and thus, it has a legal interest in the outcome of the instant lawsuit.

As to this, the Plaintiffs asserted that the application for intervention is unlawful, since they constitute abuse of power, as they committed an abuse of power, by abusing their intent to protect the public interest responsibility of provisional directors, and by abusing their authority to have them take over a NA in the modern department store group.

However, the plaintiffs' above assertion alone cannot be seen as abuse of right, and further, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above assertion is not accepted.

Next, we examine the application for participation by K, L, and M.

According to the overall purport of Eul's evidence and arguments, K applicant for participation in assistance shall be the chairperson of the O University Faculty Council, L L shall be the chairperson of the O University Staff Labor Assistance Council, and M shall be the chairperson of the O University.

arrow