[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that in a case where a medical corporation transfers a building, the construction of which was suspended due to the default to a third party, the above building was already independent real estate at the time of discontinuance of construction, and the medical corporation, the contractor, acquired it at the original time, and according to the above medical corporation's articles of incorporation, the real estate owned by the medical corporation naturally becomes the basic property of the medical corporation, and the above transfer constitutes the disposal of basic

[2] The case holding that in light of the purpose, etc. of the conditions of permission for dissolution of the competent authority to a medical corporation, it cannot be viewed as an ex post facto permission for the disposal of fundamental property done without permission prior to the above permission for dissolution

[1] Articles 41(3) and 44 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 6157 of Jan. 12, 200), Article 43 of the Civil Act, Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16854 of Jun. 23, 200), Article 40 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 180 of Oct. 21, 2000), Article 41(3) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 6157 of Jan. 12, 200), Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16854 of Jun. 23, 200), Article 40 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na14488 decided May 2, 2012

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on May 2, 2012

Daegu High Court Decision 2003Na3011 Delivered on April 23, 2004

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. The court below acknowledged the facts after compiling the adopted evidence. The new building of this case was already independent real estate on or around December 15, 1997, which was the orderee, and it was originally acquired by the orderee, and on the other hand, since Article 5 of the articles of incorporation of the order of the order of the order of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the building of this case. Furthermore, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the transfer of this case was approved by the competent authority with regard to the transfer of the building of this case, the transfer of this case is null and void, since there is no evidence to support that the transfer of this case was approved by the competent authority with regard to the disposal of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the medical corporation.

2. Where a medical corporation is dissolved, it shall repay its debts with the corporation's active property as liquidation procedures, and if any residual property exists after all debts are repaid, it shall undergo disposal procedures again. According to the facts and records duly established by the court below, Article 27 of the Articles of incorporation of the Clean Medical Corporation shall pass a resolution with the consent of at least 3/4 of the registered members at the board of directors or liquidators' meeting at the time of dissolution, and shall dispose of its residual property to a non-profit corporation with a purpose similar to the purpose of its establishment, or shall vest in the State or a local government with the approval of the Governor at the time of disposal of residual property, it shall again obtain the approval of disposal from the Governor at the time of disposal of the building site at the time of such disposal. The purport of the permission of dissolution is that it is difficult to conclude that the sale price of the building site at the time of the above disposal of the building site at the time of the sale of the building site at the time of the sale of the building at the time of the sale of the building at the time of the auction procedure at the time of dissolution or sale of the building site.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendants' assertion is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles as to permission of disposal of basic property of medical corporations, etc., as to the building of this case which was not entered in the inventory at the time of application for permission for dissolution of juristic person, and which was already disposed of without permission, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Gyeongbuk-do governor

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)