1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiffs to the following arguments following the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment.

2. The additional part of the Plaintiffs also states that the notice of the hearing held by the Defendant on August 27, 2015, which was sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs prior notice prior to the hearing, is “non-performance of the corrective order regarding the matters subject to the investigation of civil petitions and audit results by the Board of Audit and Inspection.” However, the other party to the above corrective order is G, and the Plaintiffs did not have been notified of the above corrective order, and the notification of the execution of the above hearing alone did not know what constitutes the cause of the instant disposition. Accordingly, the instant disposition asserted that there was a defect in violation of the prior notice procedure prior

However, on April 2, 2015, the fact that the Defendant notified the president, who is the representative of the board of directors of the school juristic person G, of the matters requiring correction regarding the result of the instant civil petition investigation and the matters requiring correction regarding the disposition of the audit results, as seen earlier is recognized. Accordingly, the aforementioned request for correction was duly notified to the school

Therefore, as alleged by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs did not know the contents of the directors' internal reflects among the directors of the board of directors or their failure to perform their duties as directors of the board of directors.

Therefore, as long as the above corrective measure is legally notified to the board of directors to which the plaintiffs belong, even if the hearing is to revoke the approval of executive officers of the plaintiffs, the above corrective measure did not clearly state the above contents in the prior notice.

We do not individually notify the plaintiffs of the above corrective order.