1. Of the judgment of the first instance, a resolution of the first instance court that the Defendant appointed E as the principal of the F High School on September 23, 201.

1. The court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing all the Plaintiff’s claims seeking confirmation of invalidity of each resolution stated in the purport of the claim.

In the appellate court before remanding, the appellate court confirmed that the Defendant’s decision to appoint G as the chief director and director and H as each director at the meeting of the board of directors held on November 6, 2012, the resolution to appoint I as the director on December 15, 2012, and the resolution to appoint J and K as each director at the meeting of the board of directors held on January 15, 2013 was null and void, and that the remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

The Supreme Court rendered a final appeal on September 23, 201, in which the plaintiff and the defendant appealed against each party, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the resolution that the defendant appointed E as the principal of F High School teachers on September 23, 201, and rendered a judgment dismissing the remaining appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal.

Accordingly, among the plaintiff's claims, the part of the plaintiff's claim, except for the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the resolution that the defendant appointed E as the principal of the F High School at the meeting of the open board of directors on September 23,

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the claim for nullification confirmation of the above resolution.

2. On September 23, 201, the determination on the part of the claim for nullification of an open resolution of the Defendant’s board of directors

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance, except where “the date of December 5, 2012,” as “the date of December 15, 2012,” which is “the date of December 15, 2012,” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is

B. As to the assertion that there is no standing or legal interest in the judgment on the ground of this part of the instant appeal, the reasoning of the judgment by the court on this issue is the same as the summary of the argument and the part of the judgment as stated in the fourth to twenty of the judgment by the court of first instance, and therefore, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.