According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that the original decision dismissing the application for compulsory sale by auction on the ground that Article 28 (2) of the Private School Act and Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, among the property of the school juristic person, the property of the school juristic person, such as the school site and the teacher, can not be provided for sale or security regardless of whether or not the supervisory authority permits the sale of the land or not, is justifiable, in light of the purpose of the same Act (Article 1 of the same Act), since the essential school property for the purpose of education decreases for the purpose of education, the prohibition of sale of such property does not constitute the object of the sales contract, but it does not mean that such property cannot be the object of the sales contract, and the possibility of transfer of ownership due to the sale is entirely excluded, and therefore, the original decision dismissing the application for compulsory sale by auction is justified. In light of the records, the above decision of the court below does not seem to have erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued just and therefore it is all groundless.

Therefore, it shall be decided as per the Disposition in accordance with the consistent opinion of the participating judges.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court