logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.12.07 2017구합6284
설립자변경인가불승인처분취소
Text

1. On June 5, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for changes made to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff established and operated, in total, the E Kindergartens located in the same Gu as those located in Nowon-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant kindergartens”).

B. The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with F to sell each building and site along with the right to operate the C kindergarten, and the building and site to G along with the right to operate the E kindergarten.

(2) Each of the instant kindergartens’ buildings and sites refers to “each of the instant real estate,” and each of the instant sales contracts is “each of the instant sales contracts.”

On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for authorization to change the founder of the instant kindergarten from the Plaintiff to F, and from the Plaintiff to G on May 31, 2017, on the ground that the right of operation and fundamental property of each of the instant kindergartens were transferred to F and G. However, on June 5, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition not to grant authorization to change the founder of each of the instant kindergartens from the Plaintiff to F, and on May 31, 2017 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”). However, pursuant to Article 28(2) of the Private School Act, the Defendant, on June 5, 2017, is unable to sell, or provide as security property directly used for school education, such as school sites, teachers, sports grounds, etc., and each of the instant real estate is not subject to sale as property being directly used for school education without disuse.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant real estate, which is the basic property for education of each of the instant kindergartens, is transferred to F and G through each of the instant sales contracts to F and G along with the right to operate each of the instant kindergartens, so that each of the instant real estate is continuously used for the education of each of the instant kindergartens. Therefore, each of the instant sales contracts is prohibited under Article 28(2) of the Private School Act.

arrow