[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that Byung University did not use the donations in violation of the purpose of designation, in a case where Gap and Eul agreed to make a donation with Byung National University and provided the donation for the purpose of using the donation for any other purpose in violation of its designated purpose

1. The intent of the contributor in a case where the purpose of use or the purpose of the contribution is specified in the contribution contract as a gratuitous contribution for the public interest, etc., and the intent of the contribution should be respected to the maximum extent possible. As such, the other party shall not arbitrarily divert the contributed property for any other purpose. However, whether it is used in accordance with the purpose of the contribution contract should be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the content of the contribution contract, but also the developments leading up to the contribution contract, the scale and purpose of the contribution, the degree of funds needed to accomplish the purpose of the contribution, the relation between the actual use and purpose of the contribution property, the relationship between the purpose of the designation, and the purpose of the contribution. Furthermore, even if it is used differently from the purpose of the designation, whether the refusal or cancellation of the contribution contract can be recognized immediately due to the reason for the reason for the refusal

2. On October 8, 2003, the lower court acknowledged that the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement to contribute KRW 30.5 billion to the Busan National University (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”) with the Defendant’s Busan National University on the following grounds: (a) in light of various factual relations as indicated in its reasoning, the use of the instant donation was clearly designated as the “Fund for Construction and Research Support of the Busan National University Camp” according to the specific intent clearly agreed between the Plaintiffs and the Busan National University; and (b) the Busan National University limited the use of the instant donation to the “price for the Busan National University” for its use; (c) however, it rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the rescission of the instant donation agreement, etc. on the grounds that the Busan National University used the instant donation for any other purpose in violation of the agreement, including the Plaintiff’s assertion on the rescission of the conditional donation, the revocation of unjust enrichment on the part of the intended delivery, the rescission of the condition of conditional donation, the fulfillment of the terms of good faith and the principle of equity.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the contents of the language and text regarding the use of donations in the instant donation agreement (No. 2-2 of the evidence A), the language and text of the instant donation agreement on the date of the donation donation, and the language and text of the speech at a multilateral conference on the date of the donation donation, etc., the lower court determined that the use of the instant donation was designated as “Usan University Camp Construction and Research Support Fund” at the time of the donation agreement, and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground that the Busan National University used the instant donation in line

3. Meanwhile, according to the records, Plaintiff 2, from February 26, 2007 to the Nonparty, who was the president of the Busan National University, at the time, requested that “the donation of this case shall not be used for any purpose other than the land price for Yangsan Campus. If it was used for any other purpose, it shall be restored to its original state so that it may be used as the land price.” The Nonparty, upon the above request, prepared an agreement on the purpose of the donation of this case as “the land purchase price for Yangsan Campus” and delivered it to the Plaintiffs. After that, in order to use the donation of this case, including the portion already spent for other purpose, 19.5 billion won of the Plaintiff’s contribution, the Busan National University may not be deemed to have violated the obligation to make the installment payment of the land purchase price for Yangsan National University, and it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff’s new agreement on donation of this case was made for the purpose of the donation of this case to the Busan National University from August 11, 2008.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment below is partly different, but the conclusion that the Busan National University did not use the donations of this case in violation of its purpose of use is just, and there is no error in the judgment below which affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience or the legal principles as to the interpretation of the disposal documents or the onerous donation, etc.

4. The reasoning of a written judgment is sufficient to indicate the judgment on the party’s assertion and other means of offence and defense to the extent that it can be recognized that the text is justifiable, and there is no need to determine all of the parties’ allegations or means of offence and defense (Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, even if the specific and direct judgment on a party’s assertion is not indicated in a written judgment, if it is known that the court accepted or rejected such assertion in light of the overall purport of the reasoning of the judgment, it does not constitute an error of omission of judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da88631, Apr.

The above judgment below did not limit the purpose of the donation of this case to the "Yyang Camp site price" at the time of the donation agreement of this case, however, it includes the purport of rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion seeking the rescission, etc. of the contract of this case on the premise that at least the price for Yangsan Camp site was entered into for the main purpose of the donation agreement of this case. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was an error of omission of judgment which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

5. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)