[1] The scope of "property which can not be sold or offered as security as the property of the operator of a private kindergarten prohibited by the Private School Act"

[2] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that the underground floor of the above building excluded from the authorization of modification was excluded from the property directly used for kindergarten education, in case where the defendant, after obtaining the authorization of establishment of a kindergarten on the first and third floors underground, converted the above building into an aggregate building and obtained the authorization of alteration used as a kindergarten building for the first and second floors above the above building as an aggregate building

[1] In the case of private kindergartens, the term "property sold or offered as security to private school managers" under Articles 28 (2) and 51 of the Private School Act and Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act means property sold or offered as security to private school managers under the Private School Act, which is actually used for the education of kindergartens, or the modification of the kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten's kindergarten'

[2] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that the underground floor of the above building excluded from the authorization of modification was excluded from the property directly used for kindergarten education, in case where the defendant obtained the authorization of establishment of a kindergarten from the property used for kindergarten education, in case where the above building was converted into an aggregate building after the defendant obtained the authorization of establishment of a kindergarten for the first and third floors above the above building was converted into an aggregate building

[1] Articles 28(2) and 51 of the Private School Act; Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act / [2] Articles 28(2) and 51 of the Private School Act; Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 9Da70860 delivered on June 9, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 1624 delivered on June 23, 2000) Supreme Court Decision 200Da12761, 12778 delivered on June 23, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1752)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Choi Han-seop

Changwon District Court Decision 2004No1037 delivered on September 7, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 28(2) of the Private School Act (amended by Act No. 7120 of Jan. 29, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act provide that a school juristic person’s property directly used for school education may not be sold or offered as a security. Article 51 of the same Act provides that Article 28(2) of the same Act on a private school juristic person shall apply mutatis mutandis to a private school manager. Thus, if a private school manager contributes to a parcel of land or building registered as its owner’s land or building for use as a site, teacher, or sports ground, selling such land or building is invalid as it violates Article 28(2) of the same Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which shall apply mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 51 of the same Act and Article 73 subparag. 2 of the same Act.

However, Article 4 (1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (amended by Act No. 7120 of Jan. 29, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that a person who intends to establish a school shall meet the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as facilities and equipment. Accordingly, the regulations on the establishment and operation of various levels of schools below high schools (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17397 of Oct. 31, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "Rules on the Establishment and Operation of Private Kindergartens") provides that the person who intends to directly establish and operate a private school shall obtain authorization for the establishment and operation of the 20th Private School (amended by Act No. 7120, Jan. 29, 200; hereinafter referred to as "the above regulations on the establishment and operation of private schools"), which provides that the person who intends to establish a private school shall obtain authorization for the establishment and operation of the 20th Private School, which shall be subject to the authorization for the establishment and operation of the 16th Private School Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was excluded from the property directly used for kindergarten education. Although the defendant used the above building as a kindergarten entrance or graduation, it is reasonable to conclude that the defendant's underground floor excluded from the modification authorization was excluded from the property directly used for kindergarten education, and that the defendant's ground of appeal cannot be accepted as it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above ground of appeal No. 28 of the Private School Act since it is not possible to maintain the judgment of the court below as it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above ground of appeal No. 2 of this case since the defendant's temporary use of the above building as a kindergarten entrance or graduation from the above building after the modification authorization was granted by the Office of Education in Gyeong-do on May 21, 2002.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)