Whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of a disposition of approval for taking office by a supervisory authority or confirmation of invalidity on the ground that there is a defect in the appointment of an executive of a school juristic person

Article 20 of the Private School Act, Articles 12 and 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu152 delivered on August 18, 1987 (Gong1987, 1472) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1557 Delivered on June 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1939) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15482 Delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1576) (Gong200Du3641 Delivered on May 24, 2002)

Sentencing et al. (Attorney Cho Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of the District Education Office of Cheongnam-do (Law Firm Han field, Attorneys Park Jong-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

School Juristic Person Central Educational Foundation

Daejeon High Court Decision 2004Nu1504 delivered on April 21, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s sentencing authority

The supervisory authority's approval of the appointment of an officer of a school juristic person under Article 20 (2) of the Private School Act is a supplementary administrative act that supplements an act of appointing an officer of a school juristic person to complete the legal effect thereof, and its legal effect is not sufficient. Thus, if there is a dispute as to the validity of an appointment of an officer under private law on the grounds that there is a defect in the act of appointing an officer, it is complementary to resolve the dispute by means of civil litigation, such as seeking the confirmation of invalidity of such appointment, and it cannot be a valid and appropriate means of dispute resolution, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu152, Aug. 18, 1987; 200Du3641, May 24, 2002, etc.).

In the same purport, the lower court’s decision that the Plaintiff’s suit seeking the revocation of the approval of each officer’s acceptance and dismissal is unlawful is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. Judgment on the appeal by the plaintiff Full-time.

The plaintiff's final appellate brief did not submit the appellate brief within the submission period, and the petition of final appeal does not contain any information in the grounds of final appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)