설립자변경인가불허처분취소
1. The defendant's disposition of refusing to grant authorization to the plaintiff on March 30, 2020 is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff established and operated the C kindergarten located B (hereinafter “instant kindergarten”).
B. The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D to sell the building and site along with the right to operate the instant kindergarten.
(2) The instant kindergarten building and site are “the instant real estate” and the said sales contract is “the instant sales contract.”
On February 25, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for authorization to change the founder of the instant kindergarten from the Plaintiff to D on the ground that the operating right and fundamental property of the instant kindergarten were transferred to D. However, on March 30, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition not to approve the authorization to change the founder of the instant kindergarten (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The property directly used for the school education of a private kindergarten is prohibited from being sold or provided as security, and thus, it is prohibited from being changed through sale and purchase between private private kindergartens because it is impossible to sell or provide as security.”
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, obvious fact in this court, and purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff transferred the real estate of this case to D with the right to operate the kindergarten of this case through the sales contract of this case, and D is a person who is in the process of changing the founder at the same time as the acquisition of the property. Thus, the sales contract of this case does not constitute an act of selling prohibited under Article 28 (2)
Therefore, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.
(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.
C. Article 51 of the Private School Act provides that Article 28(2) of the same Act as to an educational foundation shall also apply mutatis mutandis to a private school operator.