1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3

A. To determine whether a legal affair is autonomous affairs or an agency’s delegated affairs, a prior consideration should be given to the form and intent of the statutory provision on the matter. However, other factors should also be given to whether the nature of the affair requires a nationwide uniform process, bearing the relevant expenses, and who is the subject of final responsibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du183, Feb. 27, 2014).

B. Article 31(2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that all citizens are obliged to have their children under their care receive at least elementary education and legal education, and that compulsory education should be free of charge. However, the conclusion that the central government should bear the direct compulsory education expenses from the above provision is not derived, and the central government does not have to bear all the expenses due to the nature of compulsory education.

Article 31(4) and (6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea delegate the establishment of educational system and educational finance system to the legislators except as otherwise expressly provided for in the Constitution. Therefore, the legislators may seek various policy measures for the loyalty of education and educational finance, taking into account various factors and circumstances, such as the financial status of the central government and local governments and the level of compulsory education (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2004Hun-Ma3, Dec. 22, 2005). However, the Local Autonomy Act provides for the establishment, operation and guidance of elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools (Article 9(2)5(a)) in detail while prescribing the affairs concerning the promotion of education, sports, culture, and arts as autonomous affairs of the local government, and provides for the State and local governments with the necessary measures such as securing facilities therefor. Article 12(1) and (2) of the former Local Government Act provides for the establishment and operation of educational curriculum and special educational expenses (Article 36(1)1 of the Local Government Act).

In full view of such constitutional provisions and the purport of the above provisions, affairs such as securing sites and paying fees for the site established and operated by a local government are autonomous affairs, which are inherent affairs of a local government, which are the subject of local education autonomy, unless there are special circumstances. The State is obligated to provide financial support to the local government that realizes local education autonomy within the scope of law and budget. If a local government uses state-owned property as a school site without any legal cause beyond the scope of support of such state, unjust enrichment can be established under the Civil Act.

C. The court below accepted the judgment of the first instance, and recognized the fact that the defendant occupied and used the land of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff from September 15, 2004 to November 7, 2005, as school sites of ○○ Middle School without obtaining permission for use from the plaintiff. The defendant occupied and used the land of this case without any title during the above period without any legal ground and suffered profit without causing damage to the plaintiff who is the owner. Thus, the court below determined that the defendant was liable to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to unjust enrichment, etc. as alleged in the grounds

2. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Upon citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the confusion of the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant and the obligation to provide financial resources under the Local Education Subsidy Act are not arising from the same legal relationship, but separate rights and obligations corresponding to each other, not corresponding to each other, and thus, confusion does not occur because both parties have reverted to the Plaintiff. In spite of the change of the management agency,

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to confusion as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to grounds of appeal Nos. 5 and 6

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff's exercise of the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment of this case does not constitute an unfair exercise of rights or abuse of rights against the principle of good faith, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles

4. As to ground of appeal No. 7

The allegation in the grounds of appeal on this part is a new argument that only comes before the final appeal and cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)