1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows, and the reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the newly asserted part by the defendant in this court under Paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

[Supplementary part] Under the second part of the judgment of the first instance, the "School Court G (hereinafter referred to as the "School Foundation G") of the fourth instance judgment shall be deemed as the "Supplementary Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the "Supplementary Intervenor")," and the "school foundation of this case" in the part citing the judgment of the first instance after which the judgment of the court of first instance was accepted as all the intervenors

Part 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance (based on recognition), the "Witness" in the Part 2, the part 12, and the part 9 in the part 2, 12, shall be deemed to be the "Z of the court of first instance", the "Witness AD, Z" in the part 16, 17 of the part 18, to be the "AD of the court of first instance", and the "Witness AD" in the part 21 below to the "AD of the court of first instance", respectively.

Nos. 10 and 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied to each "this Court" as "court of the court of first instance".

2. Additional determination

A. A resolution on the “an agenda on the appointment of directors to Plaintiff C and F” made by the board of directors of the board of directors dated December 29, 2015, which was a director of the 1st intervenor’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion, was invalid because it failed to meet the required requirements under the Private School Act and the Articles of the Intervenor’s articles of incorporation.

Since the Plaintiff C and F cannot be deemed a lawful director, the Plaintiff C and F, who were reappointed at the meeting of the board of directors on August 30, 2016 and the board of directors on November 21, 2016, respectively, cannot be recognized as a director.

Therefore, the defendant's approval of taking office against the above plaintiff A, B, C, and F constitutes a serious and obvious defect in the administrative disposition procedure, and thus the defendant may revoke it ex officio in the sense that the invalidation is declared.

The grounds for first disposition against the plaintiffs are the above board of directors.