1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against Defendant I and J are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' claim against the defendant school foundation H.

Facts of recognition

Defendant H is a school foundation that establishes and operates a P University and S University, and the Plaintiffs are currently registered as directors in the corporate register of Defendant H..

When Defendant H’s internal branch of the case related to Defendant H’s internal branch of the case was prolonged in 1992, the Minister of Education made a disposition to appoint Defendant H as Defendant H’s director on August 30, 2010 after deliberation by the Private School Dispute Mediation Committee under Article 25-3 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 6004, Aug. 31, 1999) in 194, the Minister of Education made a decision to normalize the operation of Defendant H by recognizing that Defendant H’s provisional director management system was operated as a temporary director management system, and that at around 2010 the ground for appointment of temporary director was resolved.

(2) The lower court rendered a judgment that revoked the instant regular director appointment disposition on June 23, 2016 on the ground that the instant regular director appointment disposition was unlawful, for the following reasons: (a) the Puniversity faculty council and the Puniversity’s total student council filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant regular director appointment disposition; and (b) the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment on June 23, 2016 on the ground that the instant regular director appointment disposition was revoked on the ground that the instant regular director appointment disposition was unlawful, for the following reasons: (a) the open director should be appointed in the course of the normalization of school foundation through the procedures for appointing open directors through the recommendation committee, and (b) the Minister of Education cannot unilaterally appoint the

(2015Nu1535) and such judgment became final and conclusive on October 31, 2016.

(2) The Plaintiff, V, and W were registered as directors in the corporate register of the Defendant H, who was appointed as temporary directors and the president according to the final and conclusive judgment of this case (hereinafter “instant judgment”). However, the Minister of Education did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the appointment of temporary directors and the appointment of the president as prescribed by the final and conclusive judgment of this case.