logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.11.20 2014구합54691
임원취임승인취소처분취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. School Foundation D (hereinafter “D”) established on April 19, 1946 and established and operated E University, F University, six special schools, two kindergartens, etc. The Plaintiffs are executive officers of D. The positions and terms of office are as listed below:

The term of office in the name of the director recommendation classification, and the term of office of the first director under the Private School Act was legally appointed before a temporary director under the previous director's Private School Act was appointed, referring to the last fixed director retired.

Plaintiff

A Director 2 B former Director B from November 1, 201 to October 31, 2015, from November 1, 201, to October 31, 2015, 3 former Director C from November 1, 2011 to October 31, 2015, from November 1, 2011 to October 31, 2015, 4 members G members from November 1, 201 to October 31, 2015, from November 1, 201 to October 31, 2015, and Defendant I Director from November 1, 201 to October 31, 201 to October 31, 2015, from October 1, 2011 to October 1, 2017, 2013:

B. On December 31, 2013, the Defendant issued a corrective measure against all D directors including the Plaintiffs on December 31, 2013, on the ground that there was a dispute between executives, a vacancy officer (one open director, two auditors), a failure to appoint four schools (E University, F University, K School, and L School) and a failure to appoint the head of the four schools (E University, F University, K School, and L Schools) to take corrective measures until January 20, 2014, to recommend two candidates for regular directors after the expiration of the term of office, and to submit the result thereof. The Defendant did not take any corrective measures despite the foregoing guidance, and the Defendant revoked the approval of the appointment of the Plaintiffs, including the Plaintiffs and the executives of GH, and 15 (hereinafter referred to as “persons of GH and 15”) on March 14, 2014 through the hearing procedure, and revoked the approval of the appointment of the executives of G and 15 (hereinafter referred to as “public school”).

arrow