According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the land in this case was originally owned by the Confucian School, but the ownership of the land in this case was transferred to the High School Foundation, Gyeongnam-do. After obtaining permission from the Minister of Delivery in November 1, 1954, the plaintiff was donated from the above Confucian School Foundation and received the transfer registration of ownership was made on December 24 of the same year. The plaintiff concluded that the land in this case was the owner of the land in this case and accepted the plaintiff's claim for the transfer of ownership based on the land ownership.

However, on Nov. 1, 1954, when the plaintiff received the donation of the land of this case from the Confucian School Foundation, it was enforced on May 17, 1948, and Article 194 of the excessive government law, and Article 194 and Article 3 of the above law provide that the property of the Confucian School shall not be sold, transferred, exchanged, mortgaged, or otherwise disposed of without this Ordinance. Article 6 of the above law provides that the disposal of the property of the Confucian School Foundation is only a provision concerning the disposal of the property of the Confucian School Foundation, and Article 11 of the current Confucian School Property Act (No. 958, Jan. 10, 1962) did not permit the disposal of the property belonging to the Confucian School. Thus, if the bill No. 194 of the excessive government law was enforced, the disposal of the property belonging to the Confucian School was prohibited.

However, as stated in the above holding, the court of original judgment states on November 1, 1954 that the plaintiff's land in this case was lawfully and effectively donated from the Hannam-do Confucian School Foundation to the Confucian School Foundation, and that accepting the plaintiff's claim is erroneous in the interpretation of Article 194 of the excessive government law, and there is a reasonable ground for this issue. Therefore, the judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal is omitted, and the judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal is reversed and remanded to the court of original judgment for further proceedings. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges, by applying Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)