The legitimacy of recognizing that the State has received the donation to a school site without confirming the national, public or private school site.

In this case, it was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the founder of a school, which led to the conclusion that the State received donation to the school site without determining which is a national, public or private school.

Articles 82 and 83 of the Education Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 81Na421 delivered on December 1, 1982

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the above facts, the court below decided that the non-party 1's 456 square meters (138 square meters) of the above 1's 4-2's 5-1's 6-1's 6-2's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 1'6-2's 9-1's 1'6-2'2'

2. Article 82 of the Education Act at the time of the above exchange (amended by Act No. 86-12, Dec. 1, 1951) provides that schools shall be established and managed by educational districts (former Gun), the Special Metropolitan City, Do, or the State. Schools may be established and managed by juristic persons or private persons as prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes. Article 83(1) of the same Act provides that schools established and managed by the State shall be private schools established and managed by national schools, the Special Metropolitan City, Do, Si, or Gun/ Gu, and schools established and managed by the State shall be private schools established and managed by public schools or private persons. Thus, it cannot be concluded that ○○ High School at the original city was a national, public, or private school without concluding it is a national, public, or private school. Moreover, it cannot be said that the defendant received donations at the school site of the above school, and it cannot be determined that the defendant had impliedly accepted the act of exchange contracts by Nonparty 3, who was the principal at the time of the above exchange.

In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 2 (former Copy of Evidence No. 2) of defendant's use, the 364 square meters prior to the division was registered as owned by plaintiffs 4 and 5, and the 364 square meters prior to the division was recorded as owned by plaintiffs 4 and 5. Although it is not possible to distinguish whether the land is Korean or Japan, it can be written that the registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the future of the defendant on January 22, 1971 (the same purport as the evidence No. 2 No. 1 of the above evidence No. 2). Thus, it cannot be said that the maintenance of the ○○○ Eup was in conflict with the above middle school site.

Nevertheless, the court below did not examine the relationship with the founder or the defendant of the above ○ Middle School, and did not state the evidence No. 2, which conflict with the above ○○ School. Thus, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the founder of the school, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, the appeal by permission is justified.

In addition, it is not a legitimate ground for appeal because it does not fall under the grounds for appeal under Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, the appeal based on permission is with merit and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)