Applicable law to selection and appointment of temporary directors of a school juristic person

Since a school juristic person established under the Private School Act is a special juristic person established solely for the purpose of establishing and operating a private school, it is distinguished from other juristic persons under other Acts, the Private School Act should be applied in preference to the provisions of the Civil Act.

Article 25 of the Private School Act, Article 63 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Order 86Ra89 Dated September 13, 1986

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the records, as the re-appellant is a director and an acting director of the Korean President of the Korean President of the Korean Private School for the school juristic person under Article 63 of the Civil Act, the court below rejected the appointment of provisional director under Article 25 of the Private School Act, since the above juristic person is a juristic person established under the Private School Act, it is necessary to request the President of the Korean Private School to appoint it, and it is not possible

Article 25 of the Private School Act provides that the literature delivery minister shall appoint temporary directors to fill the vacancy of the board of directors of a school juristic person. Since school juristic persons are distinct from juristic persons established under the Private School Act for the purpose of establishing and operating private schools, the Private School Act shall be applied in preference to the provisions of the Civil Act. The court below is justified in rejecting the applicant’s assertion that the above provisions of the Civil Act and the Private School Act shall be applied together to the same purport. The precedents cited in the theory of lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 70Da1106 delivered on August 31, 1970) are related to an incorporated juristic person, which is not a school juristic person. Therefore, this case is inappropriate.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)