Whether the constituent organization is a foreign corporation established under domestic law but the foreign foundation is a foreign corporation.

Even though a constituent organization of a foundation is a foreigner, it shall not be a foreign corporation established lawfully by domestic law.

Articles 33 and 36 of the former Civil Act

The Foundation of the Republic of Korea Overseas, a foundation of the Republic of Korea;

The Foundation shall have the right to file a report with the President of the Korea National University, the President of the Korea National University, the President of the Korea National University.

The original judgment against the defendant 2 shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 is dismissed.

The original judgment in relation to the Simna Association Maintenance Foundation of the defendant Incorporated Foundation shall be modified as follows:

The Simno-Gaon Foundation of the Defendant Incorporated Foundation pays damages to the Plaintiff from September 10, 4287 to May 17, 289 in proportion to 30,000 per month from September 10, 4287 to May 17, 4289.

The plaintiff's claim for objection is dismissed.

The total cost of litigation between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the part that was born between the plaintiff and the defendant foundation's foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation's management foundation.

The original judgment is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff. The plaintiff's legal representative changed the purport of the claim in the original judgment to the plaintiff, and the defendant et al. paid damages according to the rate of 40,000 won each month from December 10, 4286 to the time when the name of the defendant et al. is completed.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative, as the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, is a school teacher who is owned by the Plaintiff Foundation to use it for missionary work. Defendant 2 as an incorporated foundation established under the name of the Defendant’s Foundation’s establishment, such as the establishment of a sub-party 2 and the management of a sub-party 2, who is the representative director of the Defendant Foundation, and at the same time, Defendant 2 was a founder of a sub-party 2, a founder of a sub-party 2, who is a founder of the Defendant Foundation. On November 17, 4286, the Plaintiff’s establishment of a sub-party 2, a sub-party 2, which was located in the list, and occupied and used the Plaintiff’s main school site, without the consent of the Plaintiff Foundation’s sub-party 1, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s non-party 2, a non-party 4, a non-party 2, a non-party 1, a non-party 2, a non-party 1, an affiliated with the Defendant Foundation.

Defendant 2’s defense of this safety requires Defendant 2 to possess this real estate as the representative director of the YIUD Foundation, and it cannot be said that Defendant 2 had the capacity to possess this real estate as Defendant 2’s personal qualification. Therefore, Plaintiff 2’s principal lawsuit against Defendant 2 is unlawful, and Defendant 2’s answer to this proposal is the representative director of the YIUD Foundation, which is the founder of the YIGUD, and this real estate is registered under the name of the Plaintiff, and Defendant 2 used this real estate for the 4th anniversary of this fact. Since Plaintiff 2 was an organization organized as only foreigner, it cannot be acknowledged that Plaintiff 2’s real estate was owned for the purpose of using this real estate for the 8th anniversary of the fact that Plaintiff 20th anniversary of this case’s establishment of the 8th anniversary of this case’s short-term establishment of the 8th anniversary of this case’s establishment of the 4th anniversary of this case’s use of real estate in the name of the Plaintiff’s 2nd.

As evidence, the plaintiff's attorney submitted the evidence Nos. 1-5, 2, 3, 4-1 to 5-3 of the same evidence Nos. 5-1 to 3, 6, 7, and 8-1 to 3 of the same evidence Nos. 5-1 to 5, and used the testimony of non-party Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of the non-party Nos. 6 of the court below and the result of each appraisal of the non-party Nos. 7, 8 of the court below's witness Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the same evidence No. 4, and denied the establishment of the evidence No. 4.

The defendant et al.'s attorney shall submit the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the defendant et al., and use the testimony of the non-party 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 to the non-party 14 to the non-party 14 to the defendant et al., and use the evidence Nos. 1 to 3-1 to 8-2,30,00 of the evidence Nos. 1 to 3-1 to 8-2,00 as the site.

First, as to the defense of the principal safety of the defendant et al.'s assertion, the defendant's assertion that the defendant is not a legitimate party merely denies the facts of the ground for the defendant's claim on the merits of the case, since he did not occupy the real estate stated in the attached list as an individual qualification, the defendant's assertion that the defendant is not a legitimate party is not a matter to be judged by entering the main text,

Since the fact that the real estate in the main text of the attached list in the conflict sheet on the following merits is registered in the name of each plaintiff foundation is the defendant et al., the real estate in this case is owned by the plaintiff foundation, barring special circumstances.

The defendant et al. asserted that the plaintiff foundation is an organization organized only as a foreigner and cannot acquire ownership of domestic real estate. However, although the plaintiff foundation is a juristic person, it cannot be viewed as a foreigner as long as it is duly established under the laws of the Republic of Korea even if the organization is a foreigner, so there is no need to decide on the foreigner's private right, and the argument is groundless.

In addition, even if the real estate was registered in the name of the plaintiff foundation, the plaintiff foundation is obligated to supply the main property for the education project, which is the purpose of its establishment, and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. However, the plaintiff foundation's claim for compensation for damages on the ground of the illegal occupation of the real estate owned by the plaintiff is not against the limitation of the juristic act. Thus, it is without merit.

On September 23, 280, when the defendant 2 occupies or uses this real estate as the representative of the Korea Telecommunication Association since the short-term period of Sep. 23, 280, the fact that the defendant 2 continues to occupy or use the real estate until the date of the establishment of the Korea Telecommunication Foundation on Sep. 10, 4287, which was the representative of the Korea Telecommunication Foundation, and operated the Korea Telecommunication Foundation as the representative of the Korea Telecommunication Foundation, while continuously occupying or using the real estate until the date of the title of the real estate, the plaintiff and the defendant et al., who were the representative of the Korea Telecommunication Foundation and the defendant Foundation were the owner of the real estate. The plaintiff's assertion that the Korea Telecommunication Foundation and the Korea Telecommunication Foundation were the same body as that of the Korea Telecommunication Foundation and the Korea Telecommunication Union established the Korea Telecommunication Foundation with the Korea Telecommunication Foundation without legal personality is no longer than 97 days before the establishment of the Korea Telecommunication Foundation.

The following facts are established after the establishment of the defendant foundation on September 10, 4287. The fact that the defendant 2 occupied the above real estate as an individual qualification after the establishment of the defendant foundation was denied by considering the plaintiff's transfer certificate, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it as a whole, and that the defendant 2 illegally occupied the real estate after the date of the establishment of the foundation, until September 10, 4287, since the short-term time period of 4286, the defendant 2 had no evidence to acknowledge it as an illegal possession of the real estate by the defendant 2. The plaintiff 2 had no evidence to acknowledge it as an illegal possession of the real estate by the defendant 2 for the purpose of the establishment of the foundation, and the plaintiff 2 had no evidence to recognize it as an illegal possession of the real estate by the defendant 2 as an illegal possession of the real estate by the defendant 2, the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 had no evidence to recognize it as an illegal possession of the real estate by the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 as a new owner of the defendant 2.

However, the defendant et al. asserted that there was mutual compromise between the plaintiff and the defendant et al. to waive the claim for damages against the defendant et al. on the date of display on the plaintiff's right to claim damages of this case, but there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge it. On the other hand, according to the result of the appraiser non-party 7's appraisal in the contact court as to the calculation of the amount of damages, the amount of the provisional damage between the defendant et al. and the short-term 4289 May 17, 4289 on this case's real estate by the defendant et al., the amount of the provisional damage between September 10, 4287 and the short-term 4289 May 17, 289 on this case's real estate is reasonable. Accordingly, the defendant foundation's Yannopool Foundation is obligated to pay the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of damages to the plaintiff from September 10, 287 to May 17, 289.

Therefore, the plaintiff's principal claim is justified within the scope of the opposite recognition, and the part of the claim and the claim against the defendant 2 against the defendant 2 are dismissed. Since the original judgment against the defendant 2, which had different result, is unfair, it is revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the original judgment against the defendant 2 is modified by the court below as it is not in conformity with the judgment to be agreed by the court below, and it is modified, and it is against the burden of the costs of lawsuit, applying Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the provisional execution declaration is unnecessary, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yang Gyeong-Gyeongng (Presiding Judge)