1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

If the resolution by the board of directors from April 18, 2008 to February 23, 2012, which became the object of the instant disposition by the said Plaintiffs’ assertion as to the absence of the grounds for disposition against Plaintiffs C, E, and D, becomes null and void, the Plaintiffs C, E, and D, who obtained approval for taking office in the immediately preceding time, can continue to perform their previous duties based on the right of emergency treatment until a director is appointed after expiration of the term of office. Thus, cancellation of taking office against the said Plaintiffs is unlawful.

Judgment

The instant disposition only cancelled the approval of taking office for the period appointed by the board of directors invalid as a result of the resolution of invalid invalidity. Thus, even if Plaintiff C, E, and D had the right to take emergency measures to continue to perform their previous duties until the date of appointment of the director after the expiration of the term of office, such right to take emergency measures was based on the approval of taking office based on the appointment of the officer at the resolution of the board of directors immediately before the resolution of invalid invalidity. It is merely based on the approval of taking office for the period from April 18, 2008 to February 23, 2012, which is the premise of the instant disposition.

Therefore, the issue of whether Plaintiff C, E, and D has the right to take emergency measures until the appointment of directors is made is irrelevant to the instant disposition, and the above Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

Since the Plaintiffs’ assertion of ratification after the resolution of the board of directors was made on May 2, 2014, G of the school juristic person G, including the appointment of executive officers, etc. from April 18, 2008 to February 23, 2012, to supplement the defects of the resolution of the board of directors by convening the immediately preceding directors to re-examine and re-examine them, the instant disposition based on the premise that the resolution of the board of directors to appoint executive officers is invalid.