The court below determined based on the evidence of this city that the plaintiff lent 1 million won to the defendant as the building cost of the defendant's driving school through two times on Nov. 26, 1968 and Feb. 12, 1969 (the above money was jointly borrowed from the plaintiff by three directors including the non-party representative director among four directors including the representative director of the defendant's driving school at that time) and determined as follows.

According to the provisions of Articles 16 and 28 of the Private School Act, when a school foundation borrows money from others, it is required to obtain approval from the supervisory authority after the resolution of the board of directors at the time of borrowing money from others. However, the non-party, who was the representative director of the defendant driving school at the time, is a lawsuit for the construction of the defendant driving school within the purpose of the defendant driving school and the scope of its business, and the above money is jointly borrowed from the plaintiff by three directors of the defendant driving school including the above non-party, and therefore, it is a separate issue for the defendant driving school to ask the above non-party for internal responsibility for the resolution of the board of directors and the approval and decision of the supervisory authority, and it is a legal principle that the above lending cannot be deemed null and void in external relations.

However, according to the provisions of Article 16 of the Private School Act, the school juristic person must obtain permission from the supervisory authority when the school juristic person intends to bear obligations, and according to the provisions of Article 28 of the same Act, if the school juristic person intends to borrow money from others, it shall undergo a resolution of the board of directors under Article 16 of the same Act, and it shall obtain permission from the supervisory authority under Article 28 of the same Act, and if it does not go through such procedures, the act of borrowing money shall be null and void.

Nevertheless, the court below judged that this case's act without going through the above procedure is valid in external relations, and it cannot be viewed that there has been an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the above provisions of the Private School Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not exempt from reversal.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo-gu et al. (Presiding Justice)