[2] The purport of Article 43 of the Private School Act concerning the manager of property for school juristic persons established by delegation under Article 33 of the Private School Act and property for school use established and operated by them

[2] Real estate among the property of an educational foundation is an endowment (Article 5(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act); Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act separates basic property for education and basic property for profit-making; and Article 29(1) of the Private School Act separates the accounts of an educational foundation into accounts belonging to a school established and operated by the educational foundation. Article 43 of the "Rules on Finance and Accounting of Private School Institutions" enacted by delegation under Article 33 of the Private School Act provides that "the head of a school shall be the person in charge of managing all corporate property. However, the person in charge of operating basic property for education and common property for school shall be the head of a school." This provides that the chairperson of a educational foundation shall be responsible for the strict classification and management of basic property for profit-making and basic property for education, while the head of a school imposes a responsibility for operating basic property for education belonging to a school.

(a) a corrective order related to the embezzlement of school expenses of 14.8 billion won and funds of 36 million won;

Article 48 of the Private School Act provides that “The competent authorities may order school juristic persons or private school support organizations to submit reports, inspect books, documents, etc., and order them to take necessary measures accordingly,” so that the competent authorities may inspect books, etc. at their own discretion, by providing that “If it is necessary for supervision, the competent authorities may order the founders, managers, or the heads of schools to take corrective measures or modifications thereof, with regard to facilities, equipment, classes, school affairs, and other matters.” In addition, Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act provides that “If schools violate education-related Acts and subordinate statutes, or orders or school regulations thereunder, the Minister of Education may order the founders, managers, or

Administrative disposition and punishment are different from their power basis, object and purpose respectively. In a case where a fact of violation of a certain statute constitutes a violation of a criminal law, which is the premise of an administrative disposition, an independent administrative disposition or punishment may be imposed or imposed on the same act independently. Unless the prior criminal prosecution principle is exceptionally provided, a procedural violation may not be deemed to exist on the ground that an administrative disposition was taken on the ground of a certain violation prior to the conclusion of a criminal judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu1002, Jul. 8, 1986, etc.).

(1) The lower court acknowledged the following facts. (1) Nonparty 1, as the president of ○ University, delegated all approval authority on school accounting by Nonparty 2, a person in charge of the management of school expenses, and did not actually implement construction expenses, and falsely prepared relevant documents, such as a written disbursement resolution and wage ledger, as if the construction expenses are paid, and Nonparty 2 voluntarily withdrawn KRW 14,836,00,000, which is included in the accounts of ○ University’s tuition in violation of the procedures prescribed by the Private School Act and the Financial Accounting Rules, such as the resolution of the board of directors, and the procedures prescribed by the Financial Accounting and Accounting Rules. (2) The Defendant investigated the employee in charge of the accounts of ○ University, etc., and confirmed the contents and results of the prosecutor’s investigation, and ordered the Plaintiff to recover the withdrawn amount from Nonparty 1 to recover it to the accounts of ○○ University’s tuition without the final conviction of the embezzlement of Nonparty 1.

The lower court determined that the Defendant’s corrective order was lawful on the premise of the foregoing facts. The lower court’s determination is justifiable as it was in accordance with the relevant statutes and legal doctrine as seen earlier. In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 48 of the Private School Act or Article

B. Corrective order to recover the compensation for the Plaintiff’s land from Nonparty 1

The lower court acknowledged the following facts. (1) The Plaintiff, as the foundation of the Plaintiff and ○ University, withdrawn the deposit amount of five parcels of land, including 3,420,668,054 square meters of forest land ( Address 1 omitted), which is the basic property for profit-making (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”), from the corporate tax used for corporate accounting purposes, excluding the total amount of KRW 2,727,617,474 ( KRW 3,420,668,054 - 693,050) - 693,050,000,000 won for five parcels of land, including 135 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”), which is the basic property for profit-making purposes, without permission from the competent authorities. (2) Nonparty 1 recovered all matters concerning the Plaintiff’s operation of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s order for compensation from the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s employees of the ○○ University to actually implement its business operation.

The lower court determined that the Defendant’s corrective order was lawful, on the premise of the foregoing facts, since it could be confirmed that the management of the Plaintiff’s land and the compensation for expropriation incurred therefrom was conducted in accordance with Nonparty 1’s instruction. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the

(c) Corrective orders related to false appointment of full-time teachers;

The allegation in the grounds of appeal on this part is that the remaining 20 full-time faculty members, excluding finger-in, entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff and actually take charge of clinical practice for the students of ○○ University. The court below erred by violating the rules of evidence and misapprehending the legal principles on false conspiracy, thereby finding the Plaintiff to have entered into an employment contract with 20 staff members of

This ultimately argues the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the lower court's full power as a fact-finding court, and thus cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal

2. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

A. The corrective order that orders the recovery of compensation for losses from Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 4, and the corrective order that orders the recovery of compensation for losses for land owned by Nonparty 4 and the securing of rights

(1) Real estate among the property of a school foundation is an endowment (Article 5(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act). Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act separates basic property for education and basic property for profit. Article 29(1) of the Private School Act separates accounts of a school foundation into accounts belonging to a school foundation established and operated by it. Article 43 of the “Rules on Finance and Accounting of Private School Institutions” enacted by delegation under Article 33 of the Private School Act provides that “The person in charge of management of all corporate property shall be the chief director: Provided, That fundamental property for education and general property for school shall be the chief director of a school.” This provides that the chief director of a school foundation shall be responsible for the strict classification and management of basic property for profit-making and basic property for education, while granting the chief director of a school foundation the responsibility for management of basic property for education belonging to a school foundation to the principal of basic property for profit-making and basic property for education.

The lower court determined that the corrective order that the Defendant collected the amount equivalent to compensation for losses for the Plaintiff’s land from Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 4 to return it to the corporate account was unlawful. For this reason, Nonparty 2, the president of ○○ University, cannot be deemed to have been responsible for compensating for losses due to land expropriation, which is the Plaintiff’s fundamental property for profit, and Nonparty 4, who is merely Nonparty 1’s children, is not liable for the maintenance of the Plaintiff’s basic property for profit, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 4 withdrawn and used the compensation for losses for the land under the Plaintiff’s name.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s determination is justifiable in light of the foregoing legal doctrine. In so determining, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on corrective order under Article

(2) In light of the timing and location of purchase, the relationship between Nonparty 4, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 1, etc., the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s 15 parcel of land, including the 742 square meters, which was the basic property for profit, or the property acquired by Nonparty 1, etc. with the money that embezzled the school expenses of the instant school juristic person, was unlawful, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the collection of compensation for the land in the name of Nonparty 4 and the corrective order ordering the measures to secure the rights to the remaining land in the name of Nonparty 4.

The allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is not a legitimate ground of appeal, since it is ultimately disputing the selection of evidence and fact-finding belonging to the court below's full power.

(b) Corrective orders related to the embezzlement of contributions to private school pensions and the repayment of loans;

(1) The lower court found that Nonparty 2, the president of ○ University, from September 2012 to December 2012, 2012, did not pay to the Private School Teachers and Staff Pension Management Corporation the total amount of KRW 92,062,00, the individual contributions of the private school faculty members withheld at ○ University’s salary, KRW 53,017,00, the corporate contributions of ○ University’s ○ University’s 3,793,00, the disaster compensation contributions, and KRW 49,00,000, which were deducted from the benefits of the faculty members of ○ University.

However, for the following reasons, the lower court determined that the corrective order, which deemed that Nonparty 2 could not be deemed to have embezzled the above individual charges and the repayment of loans, was unlawful.

(A) The above corporate contributions and disaster compensation contributions are merely non-party 2’s payment within the statutory deadline, and cannot be deemed as embezzlement.

(B) Of the pension of the private school faculty members withheld at ○ University’s pay, KRW 92,062,00 and KRW 49,087,00 were included in the accounts of school expenses of ○ University and used for school expenses, such as employee’s allowances of ○ University.

(C) As a result of the investigation into embezzlement of individual charges, loan repayment, etc. against Nonparty 2, it is difficult to deem that Nonparty 2 embezzled them or was aware of embezzlement, and that there was no other evidence to prove otherwise, a non-prosecution disposition was issued.

(D) In making a substantial decision on all matters regarding the operation of the Plaintiff and ○ University, Nonparty 1 had been in charge of the Plaintiff’s accounting through the employees of the corporate planning office. Nonparty 1 was indicted on the facts charged that Nonparty 1 embezzled part of the above individual contributions and loan repayment, and was convicted at the first instance court and the appellate court.

(2) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on inconsistency with the grounds and the corrective order under Article 60(1) of the Higher Education Act

3. The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)