The judgment below

The conviction portion is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

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

1. Generally, who is a party to a contract is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.

The interpretation of expression of intent is to clearly define the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expression, and where the contents of a contract are written in writing, which is a disposal document, it shall not be cited in the phrase used in writing, but it shall reasonably interpret the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expression according to the contents written in writing, regardless of the internal intent of the parties. In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and contents of the expression of intent shall be

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487 Decided May 13, 2010, etc.). Meanwhile, Article 28(2) of the Private School Act prohibits sale of, or provision of, a specific property of an educational foundation directly used for school education (hereinafter “basic property for education”). However, it is not prohibited under this Act until a school foundation disposes of the basic property for education in addition to the operating right of another educational foundation so that it continues to use such property for school education (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da54284, Apr. 24, 1998; 2007Da62048, Jan. 24, 2008; 2007Da62055, Jan. 24, 2008). However, it is not a private autonomy principle that a school foundation prior to such disposition of the school foundation’s operating right of the school foundation, etc. agreements between the actual operators of each school foundation to exercise its operating right.