The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the ground of appeal No. 2, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning based on adopted evidence, and determined that the exercise of the right to claim sale by the plaintiff cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 28 (2) of the Private School Act, in light of the following: (i) the exercise of the right to claim sale by a reconstruction and consolidation project cooperative is in essence different from the sale by voluntary disposal by the school juristic person or the manager of a private school; and (ii) the purport of Article 28 (2) of the Private School Act and Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act provides that the land area, teachers, gymnasiums, etc. among the property of a school juristic person directly used for school education shall not be sold or offered as security; and (ii) the transfer of property by the school juristic person directly used for school education shall not be deemed as a transfer by the school juristic person.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that Article 8(4) of the Early Childhood Education Act only requires authorization from the superintendent of education in cases of closing a kindergarten or changing important matters, such as location, etc., and does not require authorization from the superintendent of education in cases of disposal of real estate being used in the education of a kindergarten itself.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 28(2) of the Private School Act and Article 8(4) of the Early Childhood Education Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Ground of appeal.