Dispositions of permission by the supervisory authority to apply for an existing property exchange without approval and resolution of the board of directors of a school juristic person shall be effective.

The disposition of permission for the exchange of basic property by the defendant (Adsan City Education Committee) who is the supervisory authority of the school foundation of this case is based on an application for the exchange with forged copies of meeting minutes without obtaining approval from the board of directors when applying for the request for the exchange permission by the chief director of the school foundation. If the purport of each provision of Articles 1, 16, 28, and 73 of the Private School Act is comprehensively reflected, the permission disposition of this case is null and void due to significant and apparent defects, and it cannot be deemed that the defect of the invalid permission disposition is cured only by the fact that the board of directors of the school foundation approved and ratified the above exchange.

Article 1, Article 16, Article 28, Article 73 of the Private School Act, Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da1586 Delivered on January 30, 1979

Cho Young-han et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant 36

Busan City Board of Education (Attorney Choi Min-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 81Gu79 delivered on July 29, 1981

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The plaintiffs' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined comprehensively.

1. For its reasons, the court below's decision that the defendant applied for the exchange of basic property from the above school foundation based on the real estate stated in the attached Table (1) of the judgment of the court below, which was the basic property of the above school foundation (2) concluded on June 16, 1970 between the non-party school foundation and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, and permitted the exchange of basic property from the above school foundation pursuant to an application for permission of exchange of basic property submitted from the above school foundation based on the real estate exchange contract as stated in the attached Table (2) of the above list of the judgment of the court below which was the basic property of the above school foundation, which was concluded on June 24, 1970 between the above school foundation and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, the president of the above school foundation, was not the approval decision of the board of directors of the above school foundation on June 24, 1970 and approved the above exchange with the above school foundation's board of directors' meeting minutes, and it can not be accepted.

2. In light of the special characteristics of the private school, the Private School Act has the authority to deliberate and decide on matters concerning the acquisition, disposal and management of the property of the school foundation (Article 1 of the same Act) for the purpose of promoting the sound development of the private school by securing its independence and promoting its public characteristics (Article 16 (1) 1 of the same Act). If the school foundation intends to sell, donate, lease, exchange, change the purpose of its use, or offer its basic property as security, or to waive its burden of obligations or rights, it has obtained permission from the supervisory authority (Article 28 (1) of the same Act in case of a juristic person or manager of the private school (Article 28 of the same Act, its representative or director). If the school foundation violates the above provisions of Article 28 of the same Act, it shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than 6 months or a fine not exceeding 500,000 won, and it shall be limited to the exchange, exchange, gift or sale of basic property by the school foundation under the provisions of Article 28 (1) of the same Act.

Therefore, among the Supreme Court Decision 77Da1586 delivered on January 30, 1979, the part contrary to the above purport is to be amended.

3. Therefore, since the judgment of the court below based on the dissenting opinion cannot be maintained, it is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young, Kim So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young