[대여금][공1980.6.1.(633),12774]
Whether it is against Articles 16 and 28 of the Private School Act to recognize the employer's responsibility for the borrowing of money for the school juristic person
It is a separate legal principle that a school foundation has no effect in violation of Articles 16 and 28 of the Private School Act without obtaining a resolution of the board of directors when it borrows money from others, or without obtaining permission from a supervisory authority, and that an employee of the school foundation causes damages to a third party in connection with the execution of its duties and thus, is liable for damages as an employer. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the school foundation denied the validity of the act of borrowing money from others and recognized the employer's responsibility, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles under Articles 16 and 28 of the Private School Act or the purport of proof
Article 16 of the Private School Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act, Article 28 and Article 1 of the Private School Act
Plaintiff
○○ Private Teaching Institute (Attorney Lee Ba-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellee)
Seoul High Court Decision 78Na2317 delivered on July 13, 1979
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Point 1,
If the Defendant, a school juristic person, bears the obligation of borrowing money from others, it shall obtain a resolution of the board of directors under Articles 16 and 28 of the Private School Act, and it shall not take effect without obtaining the permission from the supervisory authority. Article 1 of the Private School Act provides that "The purpose of this Act is to secure its independence and promote its public nature in light of the characteristics of private schools, and thus promote the sound development of private schools" for the same purpose, it is pointed out that these provisions are stipulated for this purpose, but it is separate legal principles that deny the validity of the Defendant's borrowing of money in violation of these provisions, and that the Defendant's employees are liable for damages as the employer due to the establishment of tort by causing damages to a third party in the course of performing their duties. Therefore, the lower court's determination that the Defendant recognized the employer's liability while denying the validity of the Defendant's lending of money constitutes misunderstanding of the legal principles under Articles 16 and 28 of the Private School Act or that the purpose of legislation under Article 1 of the Private School Act has been terminated.
Point 2 and 3;
In light of the reasoning of the judgment, the court below held that the plaintiff lent money to the defendant through the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as collateral, and the non-party 3 was in office as the principal of the defendant corporation and the principal of the school affiliated with the defendant corporation at the original time and at the original time, and the principal's position was in charge of the principal's position and was excluded in the form of operation of the defendant corporation, but the defendant corporation as the working person of the defendant corporation had operated and controlled the defendant corporation and the school without different previous facts, and the actual exercise of economic power was in fact operated and operated as the assistant as the director and the chief of the defendant corporation, and the non-party 1 and the director and the non-party 2, who are the chief of the school affairs division, as well as the head of the school affairs division. Accordingly, the court below held that the non-party 3 was responsible for the above act of using the previous agreement to exchange the money with the defendant corporation's principal, the principal of the corporation or the principal of the foundation, or the head of the ○○○ school.
In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to employer liability or act of executing affairs, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in the incomplete deliberation, or in any other unlawful manner.
No theory of theory is without merit.
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)