The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the first instance judgment partially accepted by the lower court as to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, on the premise that the donation is constituted by the donor’s expression of intent to donate the property as public property of a local government and the local government’s expression of intent to pay the property without consent, and on November 16, 2010, the Defendant made an offer to the Plaintiff on July 22, 1987, under the premise that the donation is constituted by the local government’s expression of intent to pay the property as public property of a local government. The lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to Article 2 of the Reasons for Appeal, the court below determined that the board of directors of a school juristic person has no legal interest in filing a lawsuit against the school juristic person to request the competent board of directors to decide on the propriety of disposition of fundamental property, regardless of the intention of the representative of the school juristic person, in accordance with the legislative purport of Article 16 of the Private School Act, which requires the resolution of the board of directors concerning the disposal of fundamental property in order to preserve essential educational property and prevent the unreasonable reduction of fundamental property.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable.