Reasons for revoking the establishment permission of non-profit corporation

The cancellation of permission for establishment of a non-profit corporation can be made only when it falls under the provisions of Article 38 of the Civil Act. Thus, there is no reason to see that the existence of a non-profit corporation is detrimental to the public interest, and on the other hand, the revocation of permission for establishment violates the conditions of permission for establishment only by delaying documents to be submitted to the supervisory agency.

Article 38 of the Civil Act

Attorney Kim Jong-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Byung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 75Gu235 delivered on May 26, 1976

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 38 of the Civil Act provides that the cancellation of permission for establishment of a non-profit corporation may be limited to cases falling under Article 38 of the Civil Act. Article 38 of the Civil Act provides that the reason for cancellation of permission for establishment is when the corporation conducts a business other than the purpose or violates the conditions of permission for establishment or does harm to the public interest. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even though the defendant examines the specific facts which the defendant considers as the reason for cancellation of permission for establishment of a non-profit corporation in this case, the court below determined that the existence of the plaintiff corporation does not immediately harm the public interest or when the plaintiff corporation does an act detrimental to the public interest as alleged by the defendant, and on the other hand, it was true that the plaintiff corporation submitted a delay in the amount of up to 1973 years from the date designated by the defendant for the original adjudication of the plaintiff corporation at the time of the establishment permission, but it was already approved after 1974, which was received by the defendant, and thus, the court below recognized the conditions of permission for establishment and revoked the scope of discretion granted to the defendant.

In light of the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, it cannot be deemed that there exists an illegal cause for mistake of facts in the process of judgment, and even if considering the circumstances as discussed in addition to the arguments, the judgment is not deemed to be unlawful, and the illegality of the disposition in this case cannot be justified on the ground that the plaintiff expressed to the defendant that the disposition in this case should be dissolved before it was made.

Therefore, all appeals are groundless, and this appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant as the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)