1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

(1) On the 14th page, a resolution to appoint the plaintiffs as directors shall be valid by lawful procedures.

(2) Parts 11, 10 through 11, and 14, shall not apply to the following cases:

(1) Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall present the basis and reason to the party in the case of a disposition. In general, in the case of a disposition rejecting an application for authorization, permission, etc. by specifying the basis and reason, in which the party concerned presented a reasonable reason to the extent that the party can be aware of the grounds, the disposition cannot be deemed unlawful due to the failure to specify the basis and reason for the pertinent disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du8912, May 17, 2002, 200). According to the evidence No. 2, D applied for the approval of the appointment of director while appointing a director pursuant to Article 16 of the Private School Act. Accordingly, the defendant rejected the application for the approval of the appointment of director on the ground that all the directors as a result of a comprehensive audit are subject to the revocation of appointment.

In addition to the above reasons, there was a comprehensive audit as to D from May 21, 2012 to June 5, 2012, as seen earlier, and the disposition was issued according to the audit results on November 19, 2012. Therefore, the Plaintiff appears to have known the basis for the disposition solely based on the content stated in the above disposition.

Furthermore, it seems that there was a particular obstacle in determining whether the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and moving back to the administrative remedy procedure.