[1] The purpose of Article 28 (1) of the former Private School Act and the standard for determining whether an act constitutes an act of bearing obligations under the above Article

[2] The case holding that the contract for construction work for school facilities concluded by the school foundation constitutes an act of compulsory burden to obtain permission from the competent agency in light of the financial standing of the school foundation, scale of construction work, amount of construction contract

[3] Whether the act of acquiring or disposing of a school foundation's property without deliberation and resolution by the board of directors under Article 16 (1) of the Private School Act, the act of bearing an obligation without permission by the competent agency under Article 28 (1) of the former Private School Act, and whether the above invalid act is effective where the school foundation ratified such invalid act (negative)

[1] Article 28 (1) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 5274 of Jan. 13, 1997) provides that a school foundation shall obtain permission from the competent agency in order to ensure the sound development of a private school by ensuring the smooth management, maintenance, and protection of the property of the school foundation. Thus, whether a school foundation is obligated to bear the above provision should be determined specifically in comparison with its purpose, and all legal acts that the school foundation owes the obligation cannot be uniformly determined.

[2] The case holding that the contract for construction work for school facilities concluded by the school foundation constitutes an act of compulsory burden to obtain permission from the competent agency in light of the financial standing of the school foundation, scale of construction work, and amount of construction contract

[3] Where a school foundation acquires or disposes of a school foundation's property without deliberation and resolution by the board of directors under Article 16 (1) of the Private School Act, or performs an act of bearing an obligation without permission by the competent authorities under Article 28 (1) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 5274 of Jan. 13, 1997), such act shall not be effective, and it shall not take effect even if the school foundation ratified the above act of bearing an obligation thereafter.

[1] Article 28 (1) (see current Article 28 (1)) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 5274 of Jan. 13, 1997) / [2] Article 28 (1) (see current Article 28 (1)) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 5274 of Jan. 13, 1997) / [3] Article 16 (1) 1 of the Private School Act, Article 28 (1) (see current Article 28 (1)) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 5274 of Jan. 13, 1997), Article 139 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 78Da166 delivered on May 23, 1978 (Gong1978, 10964) Supreme Court Decision 86Da4464 delivered on April 28, 198 (Gong1987, 887) Supreme Court Decision 98Da44642 delivered on December 8, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 107) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 83Da548 delivered on December 27, 1983 (Gong1984, 257), Supreme Court Decision 93Da2074 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2609) and Supreme Court Decision 9Da294989 delivered on December 29, 194 (Gong1993, 2609)

Central Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Dong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

A school foundation or a private teaching institute

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na38905 delivered on December 10, 1999

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the first preliminary claim and the second preliminary claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The appeal against the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

1. Summary of the judgment below

The court below acknowledged that, on April 18, 191, the non-party, who is the president of the Mine University, constructed a building on behalf of the plaintiff on the behalf of the non-party, who was the non-party who was the non-party president of the Mine University, with the construction cost of KRW 10.12 billion (including value-added tax) and that the non-party, who was the cultural director and the research officer, prepared a construction contract for the construction to be donated to the defendant under the name of the plaintiff, and received all the construction cost for the above cultural supervisor and the construction cost for the above cultural research officer under the name of the defendant, and that the non-party, who was the non-party's principal claim, would not receive damages from the non-party's representative, notwithstanding the above contract terms and conditions for the construction cost of the building, the non-party, who was not the non-party's representative, was not entitled to receive damages from the non-party's representative, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the non-party's agreement was null and void (the non-party's representative).

2. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the ground of appeal on the primary claim

According to the records, the non-party, as the children of the founder of the defendant corporation, worked as the president of the defendant corporation from November 1, 1982 to February 198, and was appointed as the president of the Mine University from the defendant corporation, he participated in the operation of the defendant corporation even thereafter, and on April 12, 1991, the non-party decided that the plaintiff was the successful bidder of the above corporation who submitted a competitive bid with the cost of construction at KRW 1.3.2 billion (including value added tax) with regard to new construction of cultural centers and researchers in the name of the president of the Gwangju Power University as the successful bidder of the above corporation. In relation to the plaintiff and the defendant, the non-party set up a plan to pay the construction cost with the non-party's official budget that cannot be disbursed from the defendant corporation's official budget, and prepared the above construction contract agreement on behalf of the non-party research officer, as stated in the judgment of the court below, as well as the agreement on the donation of the above construction contract with the non-party.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence in determining that the Nonparty could not be deemed to have agreed on the instant contract in the capacity of the Defendant’s agent.

However, the purpose of Article 28(1) of the former Private School Act is to ensure the sound development of private schools by ensuring the smooth management, maintenance, and protection of the property of the school juristic person, and thus, it should be determined specifically in comparison with the purpose. However, in light of the financial status of the defendant juristic person, the scale of construction work, and the amount of construction contract for construction work, the contract for construction work in this case shall be deemed to be an act subject to permission by the competent agency.

On the other hand, where a school foundation acquires or disposes of a school foundation's property without deliberation and resolution by the board of directors under Article 16 (1) of the Private School Act, or without permission by the competent agency under Article 28 (1) of the former Private School Act, such act does not take effect even if the school foundation confirms the above act of bearing obligations thereafter. Thus, since the non-party who represented the defendant in this case did not obtain a resolution by the board of directors in entering into the construction contract of this case between the plaintiff and the competent agency and did not obtain permission from the competent agency, the contract of this case and the contract of this case corresponding to the part of the construction contract of this case are invalid, and even

In addition, the court below's decision that the agreement of this case has no validity is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and therefore, the court below's error did not affect the judgment, and therefore, the grounds of appeal as to this point

B. As to the ground of appeal on the first preliminary claim

As seen earlier, the invalidity of the contract for construction works of this case is as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s agreement on the donation of the above researchers, which forms the entirety of the said contract, shall also be null and void. Meanwhile, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings, including the fact that the Defendant obtained a building permit from the above cultural center and the research officer in its name and is currently using the current completed cultural center and the research officer, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be deemed to have agreed that the ownership of the pertinent cultural center and the research officer will be reverted to the Defendant in a timely manner. As such, the Defendant, who received the completion of the building due to the provision of the Plaintiff’s materials and labor pursuant to the contract for construction works of this case, is obligated to return

Nevertheless, even if the agreement of this case is null and void, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment by deeming that the agreement that the plaintiff donated a researcher to the defendant is not null and void. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on contract and unjust enrichment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The plaintiff

3. Conclusion

Upon receiving the Plaintiff’s appeal as to the first preliminary claim, it is unnecessary to examine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal as to the second preliminary claim and the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the part concerning the first preliminary claim and the second preliminary claim are remanded to the court below. The Plaintiff’s appeal as to the Plaintiff’s primary claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)