1. On January 12, 2016, the Defendant’s revocation of approval of taking office against each of the Plaintiffs shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. School Foundation H (hereinafter “H”) is a school foundation that establishes and operates I Middle Schools and I High Schools established on March 25, 1961.

B. The plaintiffs' positions and terms of office are as follows.

The term of office No. 1 A chief executive officer and directors, from February 26, 2014 to February 25, 2018, 2018, 〃 3 C 〃 4D 〃 4D on February 26, 2012 to February 5, 2016, from February 26, 2014 to February 6, 2018, F directors (open) from February 26, 2012 to February 6, 2018, 2012, from February 26, 2012 to February 7, 2016, G auditors from July 19, 2014 to July 18, 2016.

From June 29, 2015 to July 10, 2015, from August 25, 2015 to August 31, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice of revocation of approval of taking office in accordance with Article 20-2 of the Private School Act, Article 9-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, and Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act, on the ground that the Defendant: (a) on October 13, 2015, ten executive officers of H’s fundamental property management (hereinafter “grounds for Disposition 1”); (b) on the operation of the H board of directors (hereinafter “Grounds for Disposition 2”); (c) on the ground that the Defendant used the permanent resident and founder of the JJ within the H former president’s school without permission (hereinafter “Grounds for Disposition 3”); and (d) on the ground that he/she notified the revocation of approval of taking office.

After undergoing the hearing process on December 1, 2015, the Defendant revoked the approval of taking office (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that among ten executives of H on January 12, 2016, the Plaintiffs violated Article 20-2(1)1 of the Private School Act as follows.

The grounds for separate disposition 1 of violation of laws and regulations - improper operation of basic property for profit-making (cash) - H investment in corporate bonds that do not guarantee the principal of KRW 1.2 billion without permission of the Office of Education, but do not fall under the scope of basic property for profit-making (H) - The Plaintiffs are obliged to faithfully preserve the H’s property. However, with respect to the important agenda that invests KRW 1.2 billion in H’s property, without examining the legality and safety of the investment as well as the financial soundness and operational performance of the company to invest, it is 16th decision on corporate bonds.