beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts are as follows: “The results of fact inquiry to the Office of Education of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education of the court of the first instance” in the last and last conducts in the third part of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except in the case where “the results of fact inquiry to the Superintendent of the Office of Education of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education of the court of the first instance” is the same as the part of “1. Basic facts from the second to the third last conduct” in the second and last conduct of the judgment of the court of first instance
2. The parties' assertion
A. Plaintiff 1) The primary cause of the instant LS product is high-risk financial products with a risk of loss of investment risk, and the Plaintiff’s investment in the ES product at KRW 1 billion registered as its fundamental property constitutes an act of disposal of fundamental property. However, the Plaintiff did not obtain prior permission from the competent authority in making an investment in the ES product. As such, the Plaintiff’s investment in the instant ES product was before it was amended by Act No. 10428, Mar. 7, 201; hereinafter “former Public Interest Corporation Act”).
(3) A public-service corporation shall obtain permission from the competent administrative agency to sell, donate, lease, exchange basic property as security, offer it as security, or borrow a long-term loan exceeding a certain amount prescribed by Presidential Decree. Such violation is null and void. Therefore, the Defendant shall return to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 514,387,017, excluding KRW 485,612,983 already repaid out of the basic property invested by the Plaintiff (= KRW 1,000,000 - KRW 485,612,983), and shall pay damages for delay. 2) Even if each of the investment activities of this case is valid, the Plaintiff is a public-service corporation aimed at a scholarship project, and its basic property constitutes the substance of the Foundation, and thus, is highly likely to incur losses.