Subject to the title of debt to the school juristic person, compulsory execution against the school non-deposit claims deposited in the name of the principal of the school operated by the school juristic person.

In light of the legislative intent of the Private School Act and its Enforcement Decree, Article 28(2), Article 29 of the Private School Act, Article 12 and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the accounts of school expenses, which are expenses directly used for school operation and school education, shall be subject to strict restrictions on sale, donation, lease, exchange, change of purpose of use, obligation such as provision of security, and waiver of rights without permission of the supervising administrative agency. Therefore, deposit claims, which are the principal's name to be appropriated for the accounts of school expenses, may not be seized on the basis of the title of debt against the school juristic person.

Articles 28 and 29 of the Private School Act, Articles 12 and 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act

Plaintiff

Defendant corporation

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 8,00,000 won with 25% interest per annum from April 28, 1985 to the full payment day.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

On April 26, 1985, the plaintiff seized and collected claims until it is appropriated for the above amount among the deposits in common deposits in the Daegu Branch of the defendant Bank No. 801-1-069519 and 801-1-06897 under the order of seizure and collection against the plaintiff's creditor, the debtor educational foundation (title omitted), the third debtor's educational foundation, and the third debtor under the order of seizure and collection, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment demanding retirement allowance claim No. 84-3, 3574 of the same court. According to the evidence No. 3 (Service Certificate), there is no dispute between the parties and there is no dispute between them, and there is no counter-proof that the original copy of the above seizure and collection order has been served on the defendant on April 27, 1985.

The plaintiff's attorney argues that (name omitted) a middle school is a school established and operated by the educational foundation (name omitted) educational foundation (name omitted) educational foundation, and the non-party to the above school principal deposits in the name of the school foundation to maintain and manage the middle school (name omitted), and that the person who has a title to the above school foundation may be reimbursed for school expenses, as well as the non-party to the above school foundation (name omitted) educational foundation and the deposit owner (name omitted) educational foundation, the non-party to the above foundation's debt is separate from the non-party to the above foundation's (name omitted) educational foundation and the non-party to the above foundation's loan, and thus, it is impossible to accept the plaintiff'

In light of the above facts, the above mentioned above, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-1, 5-2, and 5-1, and 5-2 (application form) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, the educational foundation (title omitted) is a juristic person which establishes and operates middle school or high school, and as the non-party to the above (name omitted) of the deposit owner, the educational foundation established two units prior to the Daegu branch of the defendant bank and established the school for the purpose of use of the school, and established the school or operated by the non-party to the above (name omitted), and established the school for the purpose of sale of the principal and interest belonging to the school, 8, 113, 927, 801-1, 6897, which belong to the educational foundation or the government office for sale of the school, and the purpose of the above restriction on the use of the school is that it can not be directly provided to the school foundation for sale of the principal and interest belonging to the school.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which was based on the name of debt against the school juristic person (title omitted), is dismissed without any reason, and the burden of litigation costs is determined as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Choi Ki-su (Presiding Judge)