설립자변경인가불허처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-permission to change the founder against the Plaintiff on April 24, 2020 is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff established and operated a kindergarten C (hereinafter referred to as “instant kindergarten”) located in Gyeongsan-si, Busan-si.
B. The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D to sell the building and site along with the right to operate the instant kindergarten (hereinafter “instant kindergarten’s building and site,” and the said sales contract is referred to as “the instant real estate sales contract”).
On April 6, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the founder of the instant kindergarten from the Plaintiff to D on the ground that the operating right and fundamental property of the instant kindergarten were transferred to D (hereinafter “instant application”). D.
The defendant on April 24, 2020 stipulated that "the property directly used for the school education of a private kindergarten pursuant to Article 28 (2) of the Private School Act and Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall not be sold or provided as a security, and the change of the founder through sale and purchase of a private kindergarten is practically prohibited. The case of this case is subject to the change of the founder through sale and purchase of a private kindergarten, and the case of this case is not subject to the change of the founder due to abnormal donation between others, etc. because there is no document proving the sale separately from the case of this case.
“The instant disposition was issued to non-approval of the change of the founder of the instant kindergarten (hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【Unfounded grounds for recognition - the absence of dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (including spot numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the ground that the following grounds are unlawful.
1) The Defendant did not request the Plaintiff to supplement the documents prepared with respect to the instant application and immediately rejected the instant disposition.