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.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following matters among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of

(1) Grades 1 through 8 of Chapter 10 shall be advanced as follows:

"However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1-2, 6-2, 12, 21, and 24 of evidence Nos. 1-6, G voluntarily employed a new teacher without undergoing an open screening procedure at the time of employing V, 209, W on Sep. 1, 201, X, and Y as a new teacher, and submitted to the board of directors the agenda relating to the appointment. Plaintiff B and C submitted the agenda to the board of directors on February 11, 2009; and Plaintiff B and C attended the meeting of the board of directors on Feb. 9, 201 and expressed their consent thereto.

As above, without confirming whether the plaintiff B and C had undergone the open screening procedure as prescribed by the law, the plaintiff B and C consented to the appointment of a new teacher with unlawful contents.

However, in light of the part of the above disposition, the part that “the board of directors did not take measures such as rectifying that procedural defects are unreasonable in the failure to comply with the resolution procedure of the board of directors on the open screening process for new teachers” is stipulated in Article 16(1) of the Private School Act, and it does not explicitly stipulate that “the board of directors shall deliberate and resolve on matters concerning appointment and dismissal of the head of a private school and teachers established by a school foundation” shall pass a resolution on the open screening process for new teachers under the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act or the Private School Act. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the G board of directors, as seen above, did not undergo a resolution of the board of

Therefore, the ground for the second disposition of this case is about the open screening of a new teacher.