1. On March 10, 2015, the part against the Plaintiff in the disposition of rejection of approval for the appointment of a director against a school juristic person B, which was rendered by the Defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. When the former director’s term of office expires as of January 9, 2015, Nonparty B (hereinafter “Nonindicted School Foundation”) held a board of directors on November 25, 2014 and re-appointed C as a director, and applied for the approval of the re-election of director to the Defendant on December 11, 2014.

B. In addition, on January 6, 2015, the non-party educational foundation held a board of directors and re-appointed the Plaintiff, D, and E as a senior director of the former director (Plaintiff, D, E, E, F, G, H, I, and J) whose term of office has already expired, and appointed a new director, K, L, M, N, andO on January 14, 2015, and applied for the approval of the appointment of director to the Defendant on January 14, 2015.

C. On March 10, 2015, the Defendant approved the appointment of five new directors (K, L, M, N, andO) among the above applicants. However, the Defendant’s application for approval of four previous directors (Plaintiffs, D, E, and C) including the Plaintiff was rejected.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) part of the return disposition against the Plaintiff is as follows. The reasons are as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “previous Disposition 1”) - In the event that the dissemination of public opinion against the return of the president before P-P and the opposition of members in the school are deepening, P were selected and appointed as the president of Qat University (hereinafter “Disposition 1”) and caused confusion in the school (hereinafter “Disposition 1”), and the Ministry of Education demanded a plan for normalization of the Ministry of Education (hereinafter “Disposition 1”) (hereinafter “Disposition 1”), such as the deprivation of the right to self-regulation in private school operations, and did not make an active effort to normalize the university, and did not submit a detailed plan for normalization, such as a plan for personal property contribution, until now, (hereinafter “Disposition 2”), the parties [based] who have passed a resolution by the board of directors on the said matters, to the effect that there is no dispute as to the grounds for recognition, the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On November 4, 2014, Nonparty 1’s assertion by the parties, Nonparty 1’s educational foundation holding a board of directors on November 4, 2014, and held a P et al. and seven officers from the date of establishment as indicated in the articles of incorporation.