Effect of the rent act of a school juristic person which has not been permitted by the supervisory authority.

When a school foundation intends to borrow money from others, it shall undergo a resolution of the board of directors under Article 16 of the Private School Act, and obtain permission from a supervisory authority under Article 28 of the same Act, and the defendant corporation's act of borrowing money is recognized as the plaintiff's own that it did not obtain permission from the supervisory authority in this case. Thus, the above borrowing of money shall be null and void.

Articles 16 and 28 of the Private School Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da244 delivered on May 28, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 10749 delivered on July 28, 1974, Supreme Court Decision 22 ② 144 delivered on June 22, 197, Decision No. 16(1)1564 delivered on July 15, 196, Court Gazette 4

Plaintiff

Initial Institute of Education for a school foundation

Daegu District Court (73Gahap355) in the first instance

Supreme Court Decision 74Da244 delivered on May 28, 1974

1. The judgment of the court below is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,00,000 with the interest rate of five percent per annum from December 4, 1974.

4. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,00,000 with the interest rate of KRW 30% per annum from April 1, 1969 to August 2, 1972 and the interest rate of KRW 4% per annum from August 3, 1969 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

Preliminary Claim: Order 3,4,5

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

1. We examine the claims on this part.

As there is no dispute in the seal image part, the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1,2,5 presumed to be the whole authenticity, comprehensively taking account of the testimony of non-party 1, the court below and the witness after remanding the court below, the plaintiff can be recognized that the plaintiff lent 1,00,000 won to the defendant as the building expense of the defendant's driving school over two times on Nov. 26, 1968 and February 12, 1969, and the testimony of non-party 2, the witness of the court of first instance prior to remand, who is contrary to this, is hard to believe and there is no other counter-

However, when a school foundation intends to borrow money from others, it must undergo a resolution of the board of directors under Article 16 of the Private School Act, and obtain permission from the supervisory authority under Article 28 of the same Act. Since the defendant corporation's act of lending money is recognized as the plaintiff's own that it did not obtain permission from the supervisory authority in this case, the above act of borrowing money is null and void, and therefore the plaintiff's claim for payment of the loan is groundless.

2. The determination of the conjunctive claims shall be made.

As determined in the above above-mentioned claim, even if the lending relationship does not have any effect on the defendant, according to the evidence accepted as above, the defendant used 1,00,000 won in the building cost of the defendant's driving school as the plaintiff's building cost, and thus, the plaintiff's property gains as a loss without any legal ground, and the profits are recognized as existing. Thus, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim seeking the return of the profits is justified.

3. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,00,000 and damages for delay at the rate of five percent per annum from December 4, 1974 to the date following the day on which the plaintiff's brief of the instant preliminary claim was delivered to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's preliminary claim is justified and the principal claim is dismissed without merit. Since the court below is improper differently from its purport, it is so unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Shin Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)