[1] Where land or a building contributed or incorporated by a private school operator to use it as a school site, school building, sports ground, etc. is registered in the name of a school operator, whether such land or building may be used as a provisional attachment (negative)

[2] The scope of property of private kindergarten managers falling under the school site, school building, and sports ground among "property of private school managers directly used for school education which cannot be sold or offered as security"

[3] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in holding that the decision to commence the auction based on the provisional seizure was lawful by finding that the kindergarten was erroneous at the time when the certificate of authorization was reissued, and that the decision to commence the auction based on the provisional seizure was made lawful, in case where the creditor registered provisional seizure of the kindergarten's property after the authorization was obtained, and the

[1] Article 276 of the Civil Execution Act, Articles 28(2) and 51 of the Private School Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act / [2] Articles 28(2) and 51 of the Private School Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act / [3] Articles 28(2) and 51 of the Private School Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 72Ma330 Decided April 14, 1972 (No. 20-1, 206) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu4947 Decided November 15, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 121) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da22643 Decided September 13, 2004 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6261 Decided December 10, 2004 (Gong205Sang, 166)

Re-appellant

Daegu District Court Order 2010Ra420 dated November 29, 2010

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 28(2) of the Private School Act and Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that school site, teachers, gymnasiums, etc. among the property of a school foundation directly used for school education shall not be sold or offered as security. The purport of Article 28(2) of the same Act is not only that it cannot be the object of a sales contract, but entirely exclude the possibility of transfer of ownership due to sale and purchase. However, Article 51 of the same Act provides that Article 28(2) of the same Act on a person operating a private school shall apply mutatis mutandis to a person operating a private school. Thus, even if land or building contributed or incorporated by a private school manager for use as school site, teachers, sports ground, etc. is registered in the name of an individual of a school, it shall not be subject to compulsory execution by Article 51(2) of the same Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 200Mo230, Apr. 14, 197; Supreme Court Decision 200Nu164, Nov. 196, 196

According to the records, on November 15, 2006, the re-appellant was issued a letter of authorization for the establishment of a kindergarten on the ground that the re-appellant, the head of the education center in the office of education in the office of education in the office of education in the office of Yeongdeungpo-do, the head of the office of education in the office of Jung-do, the head of the office of education in the office of the office of education in the office of Jung-do, the head of the office of the office of education in the office of Jung-do, the number of classes, seven classes, and the fixed number of 210 persons (including the closing day 25 persons) has been used for the general extension on March 16, 2009, and it

Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding that the re-appellant was authorized to establish a kindergarten on March 16, 2009 and did not examine whether each of the real estate in this case was actually used directly for kindergarten education as the head of the kindergarten's kindergarten, the court below determined that the first instance court's decision revoking the decision to commence the auction in this case was unlawful on the ground that the creditor completed the registration of provisional seizure before the authorization to establish the above kindergarten was lawful. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to educational property in Article 28 (2) of the Private School Act or misconception of facts against the rules of evidence.

There is reason to point this out.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)