[1] In a case where the approval of the appointment of a director of a school foundation was revoked and a provisional director was appointed but the period of the provisional director's tenure has expired, whether there is a legal interest in seeking a cancellation of the initial provisional director's appointment disposition (negative)

[2] In a case where there is no particular fault in the approval of the appointment of a director of the school juristic person itself and there is no separate legal ground to revoke the disposition, and where there is no need to maintain the original disposition, or where there occurs any change in circumstances or there occurs a need for the important public interest, whether the competent agency may revoke it by a separate administrative act

[1] Where the approval of the appointment of a director of a school foundation is revoked and a provisional director is appointed, if the temporary director again is appointed after the period of office of the temporary director, seeking cancellation of the initial provisional director appointment disposition is unlawful as there is no legal interest.

[2] The competent agency which has approved the appointment of a director of the school foundation may cancel the approval of the appointment pursuant to Article 20-2 (1) of the Private School Act when the director of the school foundation commits an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 20-2 (1) of the Private School Act. In addition, even though there is no particular fault in the approval of the appointment, and there is no separate legal ground for the cancellation of the disposition, if any change of situation becomes unnecessary to maintain the original disposition, or if there occurs a need for the important public interest, it may cancel

[1] Articles 20-2 and 25 of the Private School Act; Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 20-2 of the Private School Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [general administrative disposition]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7436 delivered on March 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 976), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5313 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1784), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8914 delivered on March 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 16Nu9171 delivered on April 25, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10614 delivered on June 11, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1427) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Nu4782 delivered on April 11, 198 (Gong1999, 1947Nu939495 delivered on April 194, 195) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 196Nu198294 delivered on September 195, 1997

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorney Lee Yong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The superintendent of the Office of Education (Attorney Kim Jong-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Park Gyeongyang (Law Firm Shin, Attorney Song Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu9467 delivered on March 22, 2001

Of the judgment below, the part of the claim for revocation of a provisional director appointment and disposition is reversed, and all of the lawsuits are dismissed. All of the remaining appeals are dismissed. Costs of lawsuit and costs of appeal in the part of claim for revocation of a provisional director appointment and disposition

1. Judgment on the disposition of selection and appointment of temporary directors

The grounds of appeal are examined ex officio prior to judgment.

Where the approval of the appointment of a director of a school juristic person is revoked and a provisional director is appointed, if the temporary director again is appointed after the tenure of office of the temporary director, seeking the cancellation of the initial provisional director appointment disposition is unlawful as there is no legal interest.

In this case, on February 10, 200, the defendant revoked the approval of the appointment of director of the non-party school foundation against the plaintiffs, and the disposition of this case where seven persons such as the defendant joining the defendant were appointed as temporary director. Since the provisional director was again appointed after two years of his tenure of office, the plaintiffs were not legally interested in seeking revocation of the provisional director appointment disposition among the disposition in this case. Accordingly, the part seeking revocation of the provisional director appointment disposition among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, and this part of the judgment below is no longer maintained.

2. Judgment on the cancellation of the approval for the appointment of director

A. The competent agency which has approved the appointment of a director of a school foundation may cancel the approval of the appointment pursuant to Article 20-2(1) of the Private School Act when the director of the school foundation commits an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 20-2(1) of the Private School Act. In addition, even if there is no particular fault in the approval of the appointment of a school foundation itself and there is no separate legal ground for the cancellation of the disposition, if any change in circumstances becomes unnecessary to maintain the original disposition, or if a need for important public interest arises, it may cancel such act by a separate administrative act that causes the loss of the effect of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu4782, Apr. 11, 1989; 94Nu8266, May 26, 199

In the same purport, the court below determined that the non-party 1 was a school foundation established by contributing the land owned by the non-party 2 to the non-party 1 as the basic property and established a high school. It is clear that the non-party 2 was appointed as a director of the non-party 1 school foundation and the non-party 2 embezzled the school property. The defendant revoked the appointment approval of all directors including the plaintiff 1 on April 14, 1994 and appointed a provisional director on the ground that the non-party 1 transferred the real estate, etc. owned by the non-party 2 to the non-party school foundation in lieu of paying the money embezzled by the non-party 2 to the non-party 2, it was not possible for the defendant to accept the plaintiffs' request for the dismissal of the non-party 2 to the non-party 1 as a director on December 31, 199, but it was not possible for the non-party 2 to accept the plaintiffs' request for the normalization of the school foundation and the non-party 2 to participate in the high school.

B. Meanwhile, in revoking the approval of the appointment of director against the plaintiffs, the defendant's assertion that the revocation disposition is unlawful since it did not notify the disposition in advance or provide an opportunity to present opinions in accordance with Articles 21 and 22 (3) of the Administrative Procedures Act shall not be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal, since it is only asserted in the final appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which reversed the claim for revocation of the provisional director appointment disposition, and all of the lawsuits are dismissed, the remaining appeals are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of litigation cost.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)