[1] The degree of legal interest to be secured by a person seeking confirmation of invalidity of a resolution of board of directors by an educational foundation under the Private School Act

[2] The scope of discretion held by an educational foundation under the Private School Act on the opening and closing of a department

[3] The case holding that students and professors of private schools do not have legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the board of directors resolution regarding the abolition of departments

[1] As to a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a resolution of a school foundation under the Private School Act, since there is no explicit provision such as a lawsuit seeking revocation of a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders under the Commercial Act or a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity and existence of a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders under the Civil Act, as a result of the application of the general principle under the Civil Act as well as the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the validity of the resolution is likely to vary depending on personal interests. Therefore, in light of the importance of the resolution of a board of directors or the impact of the resolution on the whole members of the company, it is insufficient to say that a person seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of a board of directors has an personal interest in the resolution of the board of directors, and as such, there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the appropriate operation of the school foundation, as long as it

[2] In the opening and closing of the department of private school, the school juristic person, which is the subject of the establishment and operation of the private school, has a broad discretion to the extent that it does not infringe on the students’ right to receive education and the essential part of

[3] The case holding that in case where the board of directors of a private school decided to abolish a specific department and, at the time of the resolution, the students and the professors attending the above department did not have a legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the board of directors concerning the abolition of the department, where they maintained the course of study while maintaining the name of the department and there is no change in the status of the faculty members belonging to

[1] Article 16 of the Private School Act, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 2 of the Private School Act / [3] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and 39 others (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

School Foundation Shipbuilding University (Attorney Jeong Jong-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 29, 2007

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The resolution by the board of directors of the defendant on May 29, 2006 on the release and abolition of precious metals from the Joseon Korea's University.

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

The plaintiffs asserted that the resolution of this case by the board of directors on May 29, 2006, which was made by the defendant on the bail and abolition of precious metals from the Korea Shipping University (hereinafter "the resolution of this case") did not go through the hearing procedures against the professors and students of the above department, and the contents of the resolution also violated the "department Integration and Closure Department Regulations" of the Korea Shipping University (which was before the amendment of May 18, 2006) and therefore, they are unlawful as an entity and thus, they are sought nullification.

The lawsuit for confirmation is a legal interest in the case where there is an apprehension or risk existing in the rights or legal status.

However, pursuant to Article 16 of the Private School Act and Article 31 of the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation, the board of directors of the same school foundation as the defendant corporation shall deliberate and resolve on the budget, settlement of accounts, loans, acquisition, disposal and management of property of the school foundation, matters concerning the modification of the articles of incorporation, matters concerning the merger or dissolution of the school foundation, matters concerning the appointment and dismissal of officers, matters concerning the appointment and dismissal of the head of the private school established by the school foundation, matters concerning the appointment and dismissal of the teachers, important matters concerning the management of the private school established by the school foundation, and matters concerning profit-making business of the private school foundation, etc.

However, with respect to a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a resolution of a board of directors by a school foundation under the Private School Act, there is no explicit provision such as a lawsuit seeking revocation of a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders under the Commercial Act, and if there is any defect in the resolution of a board of directors, it shall be governed by the general principles under the Civil Act, and the general principles of res judicata shall not be granted to the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the validity of the resolution shall vary depending on personal interests. Therefore, in light of the importance of the above resolution of a board of directors and the impact of the resolution on the whole of the inside members, it is insufficient to say that there is an individual interest in the resolution of a board of directors, and as such, there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the appropriate operation of the school foundation, as long as the effect on all the inside members of the school foundation depends on the effects of the resolution of a board of directors.

On the other hand, in the opening and closing of the department of private school, the school juristic person, which is the subject of the establishment and operation of the private school, shall have broad discretion to the extent that it does not infringe on the students' right to receive education and the essential part of

With respect to the instant case, Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are professors working in the Department of Predivers for the Department of Predivers for the Department of Shipbuilding. The remaining plaintiffs except the above plaintiffs are students attending the same department. The board of directors of the Defendant Corporation decided to abolish the above department on May 29, 2006. Accordingly, the Defendant Corporation still did not select new students in the year 2007 of the above department. Meanwhile, the current course of students in the above department is maintained, and there is no change in the status of professors. The above name of the department is maintained until the graduation of the students in the above department at the time of the instant resolution, and the fact that the closure and procedure of the above department will be completed is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), evidence No. 16-1, 2, evidence No. 2-1, 2-2, and 3 as a whole.

Based on the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs are legally interested in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case.

First, in the case of the plaintiffs who are enrolled in the school, they can maintain their status as students with precious metal release and take lessons in the above department until their graduation, and the resolution of this case does not affect the above plaintiffs' rights or legal status. Therefore, there is no legal interest in seeking nullification of the resolution of this case by lawsuit.

Next, it is clear that Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, and 4, professors, pursuant to the resolution of this case, had an opportunity to teach students as a result of the suspension of the recruitment of new students from 2007 to 2007, but the right to education or lectures of the plaintiffs, university professors, is premised on students' right to teach students, so long as the recruitment of new students is interrupted, the right to teach students to the above department cannot be infringed due to the lack of rights. Further, since the resolution of this case does not immediately change the plaintiffs' teaching status, it cannot be deemed that there was an infringement of the right to education or academic research of students. Accordingly, the resolution of this case itself cannot be said to have any existing danger or defect in the plaintiffs' rights or legal status, and in light of the above legal principles, the board of directors of this case did not have a full-time interest in the proper operation of the defendant foundation. However, even if any, the above plaintiffs' right to education or lectures of the plaintiffs, which are university professors, was not a legitimate one of the parties to this case's resolution to seek nullification of the amendment of this case.

2. Conclusion

Thus, all of the lawsuits of this case are unlawful and decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)