Park Jin-style (Attorney Park Jong-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Director-General of the Management Office of Gyeongbuk-do Education (Attorney Park Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

December 20, 1989

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The approval of the appointment of an officer of the Non-Party Educational Foundation as of February 2, 198 by the defendant as of February 2, 1988 shall be revoked. The litigation cost shall be borne by the defendant.

1. When the defendant, as its officers, tried to extend the number of directors to 1, 2 (No. 30) and 3 (No. 6), 2 (No. 6), 3 (No. 6), 8 (No. 18), 24 (No. 24), 27 (No. 9), 29 (No. 9), 29-1, 30-1, 30-2 (No. 1,000,000,000), issued an application for the appointment of directors to 1,000 directors at the time of 2,000,0000, 1,0000,0000, 1,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00).

2. First of all, the Plaintiff is a school juristic person which is substantially established by the Plaintiff. At the time of its establishment, the Plaintiff was established by entering the board of directors with good faith, scarde, and scardeed directors, and the Plaintiff became the chief director, and established and operated high schools. The remaining directors except the Plaintiff do not have any interest in promoting the growth and development of the school, and the Plaintiff’s appointment of temporary directors by taking advantage of good faith and method of management rights for the sole purpose of the 1st class of the 7th class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 8th class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 7th class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 7th class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 1st class of the 3th class of the 3th class of the 1.

Therefore, prior to the determination of the merits, the approval of the appointment of an officer by the supervisory authority for an officer of a school foundation under Article 20(2) of the Private School Act is a supplementary administrative act to complete the legal effect by supplementing the act of appointing an officer by the school foundation. Thus, in a case where the act of appointing an officer by the school foundation, which is a basic act, is not established or null and void, even if the appointment of an officer by the supervisory authority was approved, such appointment cannot be deemed null and void.

In other words, the supervisory authority's approval of the appointment of an officer of a school juristic person is a supplementary act that completes the legal effect of the appointment of an officer under the jurisdiction of the board of directors of the school juristic person, on the premise that there is an effective appointment of an officer under the jurisdiction of the board of directors of the school juristic person.

Therefore, in a case where there is a defect in the act of appointing a director, which is a basic act, and the validity of such appointment is disputed, it is a civil lawsuit, aside from seeking the revocation or invalidity confirmation of such appointment, and the right to seek the revocation or invalidity confirmation of such appointment on the ground of failure or invalidity of a basic act, cannot be deemed as a legal interest in filing a lawsuit, barring any special circumstances. Thus, on the premise that the plaintiff's act of appointing a director of the Educational Committee and the act of appointing a director of this case by a temporary director of the Educational Committee is not effective as illegal, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the approval of taking office of this case is unlawful in light of the above legal principles, and thus, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted without further review.

Next, the plaintiff argues that the defendant's disposition of approval of taking office of the educational foundation of this case with the authority to grant approval of taking office of the educational foundation under Article 6 (2) 10 of the Regulations on the Delegation of Administrative Authority of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee (No. 216 of May 18, 1985), but Article 29 (1) of the Education Act provides that "the Board of Education may delegate part of the affairs within its authority to the Superintendent of the Educational Committee as prescribed by the Educational Rules." The above rules delegated to the Director of the Educational Committee of the Standing Committee to the Director of the Provincial Office of Education who is not a part of its authority to the Director of the Office of Education, are invalid as a delegation clause that is not based on the Mother Act, and therefore, the defendant's disposition of approval of taking office of this case is invalid by a non-authorized person.

Therefore, according to the provisions of Article 4 (2) 2 and Article 20 (2) of the Private School Act, the right to approve the appointment of an officer of a school foundation which establishes and operates a private high school, etc. as stated in this case belongs to the Board of Education of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Do which has jurisdiction over its original location. The Education Committee may delegate part of its administrative affairs to the Superintendent of the Education Committee as prescribed by Article 29 (1) of the Education Act, but Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act, which is a general provision concerning the delegation or entrustment of the authority of an administrative agency, may delegate or delegate part of its affairs to other administrative agencies or subordinate agencies, or to other administrative agencies or subordinate agencies, or to the above agencies, and Article 4 (2) of the Private School Act provides that "the assistant agency shall carry out its affairs within the scope of its authority," and Article 29 (1) of the Education Act provides that "the 2nd National Government Organization Act, which is a kind of administrative agency under the above provision of the Government Organization Act, shall also delegate its authority to the 1.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the defendant's approval of taking office of this case is illegal, is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

January 24, 1990

Judges Song Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)