The validity of an order to seize and assign private school subsidies under Article 43 (1) of the Private School Act;

The subsidy for fostering private schools under Article 43 (1) of the Private School Act is granted by the State or local governments to support the education of private schools when it is deemed necessary to promote the sound development of private schools by securing the independence of private schools and promoting the public nature, and therefore, it is necessary to receive and pay the subsidy only between the relevant local government and the relevant school foundation, etc., since the subsidy for fostering private schools under Article 43 (1) of the Private School Act can not be seized because it is not permitted due to its nature.

Article 43 of the Private School Act, Articles 561 and 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

Kim Yong-won et al.

Busan Metropolitan City

Busan District Court (90 Gohap8773)

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Kim Yong-won 25,985,753 won, the amount of 22,867,463 won and the amount of 25 percent per annum from October 1, 1984 to the full payment date.

If Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1-5, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1-2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 4-1, and Eul evidence 4-2, the whole purport of the oral argument is added to the whole purport of the oral argument, the defendant's subsidy from March 3, 1990 to December 12 of the same year from the date of the decision to grant the above school foundation's 1990 to the above school foundation's 345,085,00 among the loan's loan's loan's fostering subsidy from the above school foundation's 1990 to the above school foundation's 345,085,00 among the loan's fostering subsidy's loan's loans' 89-4980 on March 2, 190 to the defendant's above 1-7, Busan District Court's order equivalent to the above plaintiff's loans's 4975,7575,74637

However, in light of the purport of the above provision, since the Defendant asserts that the above subsidies for fostering private schools are invalid because they are not transferable, Article 43 of the Private School Act, Article 17 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, Article 17 (2) of the Private School Act, and Article 17 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the subsidies for fostering private schools, and the purpose of the Subsidy Budget and Management Act, etc., the subsidies for fostering private schools are given to the State when it is deemed necessary for the promotion of education by securing the independence and promoting the public nature of private schools, and by promoting the sound development of private schools, and thus, they are given and received only between the Defendant and the above school juristic person and the above school juristic person, and the claims for the subsidies cannot be seized because they are not permitted due to their nature, and thus the seizure and assignment order is invalid. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is justified.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case based on the premise that the seizure and assignment order of this case is valid is without merit, and the original judgment is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)