A. Whether a school juristic person may file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the cancellation of title trust without permission from the competent agency with respect to real estate under title trust incorporated into its fundamental property

B. Whether a claim for a trial in lieu of an expression of intent to request a competent agency with respect to the return of title trust real estate against a school juristic person has a benefit of protecting rights

C. Whether or not a lawsuit can be brought to implement the procedure of registration of ownership transfer subject to the permission of disposal by the competent agency, or whether a lawsuit can be brought to implement the procedure of registration of ownership transfer registration under Paragraph (B) only in combination

A. If a real estate title trust with a school juristic person is incorporated into a basic property of a school juristic person, the title truster cannot file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the cancellation of title trust against the school juristic person that is the title trustee without permission from the competent agency under Article 28(1) of the Private School Act.

B. With the permission of the competent agency on real estate held in title by a school juristic person, the title truster may receive a refund thereof. If the title truster terminates a title trust, the school juristic person that is the title trustee bears the competent agency’s obligation to apply for permission on return of real estate held in title trust to the competent agency. If the title trustee fails to perform such obligation, the title truster may file a petition for a judgment in lieu of an expression of intent to grant permission under Article 389(2) of the Civil Act, and if the competent agency does not necessarily have to grant permission, such a petition for judgment cannot be deemed as

C. Even if it is possible for a title truster to file a lawsuit for the performance of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer, which is subject to the permission of disposal by the competent authorities, in combination with the lawsuit for the performance of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer, whether two claims can be jointly filed may be chosen by the title truster at will, and there is no ground to deem that the title truster can file a lawsuit for the performance of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer only after the judgment of the performance

(a)B. Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit] Article 28(1)(b) of the Private School Act / Article 389(2)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act / Article 230 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Meu499 delivered on September 28, 1982 (Gong1982, 1012), 90Da8558 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1736). Supreme Court Decision 83Da549 delivered on November 8, 1983 (Gong1984, 24) (Gong19866 delivered on April 14, 1992)

Attorney Yang Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Dong-dong, Attorney Park Jong-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Gwangju High Court Decision 92Na8858 delivered on November 26, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal (if the defendant's supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed, to the extent it supplements the grounds of appeal) are examined.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

A. The court below rejected the claim that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful against the defendant, who is a school foundation, for the permission to dispose of the basic property of the school foundation at the discretion of the competent agency as follows: since the defendant's main safety defense, that is, the permission to dispose of the basic property of the school foundation of the competent agency, belongs to the discretion of the competent agency; therefore, the defendant, who is the school foundation, does not have any right or obligation to request the permission to dispose of the basic property; therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, who is the school foundation, for the permission to dispose of the ownership transfer on the ground of the termination of title trust of each of the real property of this case, is unlawful, since Article 28 (1) of the Private School Act provides that the school foundation shall obtain permission from the competent agency when it intends to sell the basic property. to exchange or use the basic property, to provide the security, or to waive the burden of obligation or right, Article 11 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that the above permission to dispose of the basic property of the school foundation shall be attached to the specifications of the property.

B. If a real estate is incorporated into a school juristic person’s basic property even if it is registered in title with a school juristic person, the title truster cannot file a claim for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the cancellation of title trust against the school juristic person which is the title trustee without permission from the competent agency under Article 28(1) of the Private School Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da8558, May 28, 191). However, upon permission from the competent agency, the title truster can receive refund of the real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Da549, Nov. 8, 1983). If the title truster terminates the title trust, the title truster is liable to apply for permission from the competent agency for the return of real estate held in title trust to the school juristic person, and if the title trustee fails to perform such obligation, the title truster cannot file a request for a judgment substituting his/her declaration of intention to grant such permission under Article 389(2) of the Civil Act.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, and in such a case, even if it is possible for the title truster to file a lawsuit for the performance of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer subject to the permission of disposal by the competent authorities concurrently with the action for the execution of the above permission procedure, whether the two claims should be combined can be decided at will by the title truster, and as such, the title truster can bring a lawsuit for the performance of the above permission procedure only after the judgment of the performance of the above procedure for the registration of ownership transfer was rendered first or after the above action was joined, and there is no ground to view that the

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3:

In light of the records, the court below's finding that each real estate of this case was a title trust to the defendant is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of the legal principles as to title trust, and the precedents cited by the theory of lawsuit cannot be appropriate in this case. There is no reason to argue.

3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)