No compulsory execution shall be made against any property such as the school site and teacher, which is directly used for the private school education.

Property such as school site, teacher, etc. used directly for the education of private schools can not be the object of the sale contract, but the possibility of transfer of ownership due to sale is all excluded, and it is prohibited by the compulsory sale procedure.

Article 28 (2) of the Private School Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act

Appellant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Jin-hun, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Order 72Ra7 dated February 9, 1972

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined by the re-appeal agent.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below determined that the original decision dismissing the application for compulsory sale by auction on the ground that Article 28 (2) of the Private School Act and Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, among the property of the school juristic person, the property of the school juristic person, such as the school site and the teacher, can not be provided for sale or security regardless of whether or not the supervisory authority permits the sale of the land or not, is justifiable, in light of the purpose of the same Act (Article 1 of the same Act), since the essential school property for the purpose of education decreases for the purpose of education, the prohibition of sale of such property does not constitute the object of the sales contract, but it does not mean that such property cannot be the object of the sales contract, and the possibility of transfer of ownership due to the sale is entirely excluded, and therefore, the original decision dismissing the application for compulsory sale by auction is justified. In light of the records, the above decision of the court below does not seem to have erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued just and therefore it is all groundless.

Therefore, it shall be decided as per the Disposition in accordance with the consistent opinion of the participating judges.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court