The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The binding force of the ruling extends only to the recognition and judgment of the order of the ruling and the facts constituting the premise thereof, i.e., the judgment on specific grounds for illegality of the disposition.

Therefore, even if the previous disposition was revoked by the ruling, it does not conflict with the binding force of the previous disposition for reasons different from the time of the previous disposition.

Here, whether it is the same reason or a different reason should be determined on the basis of whether the reason determined by the ruling is illegal as to the previous disposition and whether it is a reason recognized as identical in the basic facts.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7705, Dec. 9, 2005). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts. A.

The Plaintiff is an educational foundation that operates Fhigh schools and G middle schools. From December 3, 1983, the Plaintiff registered the Plaintiff’s basic property for education with the permission of the superintendent of the Office of Education’s change of the purpose of use from Gyeongbuk-do, which was owned by the Plaintiff, as the basic property for education, and used it as the practice ground for Y-gu and Y-gu in the school.

B. On April 4, 1990, the Plaintiff filed an application with the superintendent of education for permission to change the use of Hri land as basic property for profit-making purposes and to manage the disposal price in substitution for a fixed deposit on the ground that the land was not utilized due to the dissolution of the camping zone and the financial security for the school relocation plan.

C. On May 7, 1990, the superintendent of the Office of Education of the Gyeong-do Office of Education attached the conditions such as the deposit of time deposit from the disposal price and the disposition by August 20, 1990, etc., but the Plaintiff failed to dispose of the Ha-ri land by the above deadline, and there was no permission again to change the use of the Ha-ri land to the fundamental property for education.

The defendant.