[1] Whether the ownership of fundamental property is transferred to the successful bidder without permission from the competent authority for the successful bid of real estate, which is a fundamental property of a social welfare foundation, in the procedure of a successful bid of real estate

[2] Whether childcare facilities established by a social welfare foundation that provides childcare services constitute the fundamental property of a social welfare foundation (affirmative)

[1] Article 23 (3) of the Social Welfare Services Act concerning the sale of fundamental property, provision of security, etc. of a social welfare foundation is a mandatory provision, and it is also effective even if the social welfare foundation sells its basic property without obtaining permission from the competent authority in violation of this provision. Thus, even if the court's auction procedure for real estate rental and the successful bid price has been fully paid, the ownership of the real estate shall not be transferred from the social welfare foundation to the successful bidder without obtaining permission from the competent authority for

[2] According to Articles 2(1)6 and 23(2) of the Social Welfare Services Act and Article 13(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Social Welfare Services Act, childcare facilities established by a social welfare foundation that provides childcare services pursuant to Article 8 of the Infant Care Act and Article 7 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act are fundamental property of the social welfare foundation.

[1] Article 23(3) of the Social Welfare Services Act, Article 136 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Article 2(1)6 of the former Social Welfare Services Act (amended by Act No. 6960 of July 30, 2003), Article 23(2) of the Social Welfare Services Act, Article 13(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Social Welfare Services Act, Article 8 of the Infant Care Act, Article 7 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 77Da1476 delivered on September 13, 197 (Gong1977, 10295)

[Judgment of the court below]

Jeju District Court Order 2002Ra31 dated November 16, 2002

The reappeal is dismissed.

The provisions of Article 23(3) of the Social Welfare Services Act concerning the sale of fundamental property, provision of security, etc. of a social welfare foundation are compulsory provisions, and there is no effect that a social welfare foundation sells its fundamental property without obtaining permission from the competent authority in violation of this provision (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da1476, Sept. 13, 197). Even if the court's auction procedure for real estate auction and the successful bid price was fully paid, the ownership of the real estate shall not be transferred from the social welfare foundation to the successful bidder without obtaining permission from the competent authority. Furthermore, according to Articles 2(1)6 and 23(2) of the Social Welfare Services Act, Article 13(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Social Welfare Services Act, Article 8 of the Infant Care Act, Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act [Attachment 2] of the Infant Care Act is the basic property of the social welfare foundation.

The court below held that on June 25, 1992, ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○”) was ordered to deliver the real estate of this case to ○○○○○○○○○○ on the basis of the Social Welfare Services Act and owned the real estate of this case as social welfare facilities from that time after obtaining authorization to establish and operate childcare facilities from the Jeju Do governor. The re-appellant was awarded the real estate of this case on July 29, 200 in Jeju District Court No. 2000 (case No. 2000 (case No. 200) and paid the successful bid price on September 12, 2002 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on September 27, 2002. However, the court below's decision on ○○○○○○ was just in light of the legal principles as to the right to create mortgage under the name of Nonparty 1, the applicant for voluntary auction, and it still did not have any errors in the law regarding the above disposal of the real estate.

The Re-Appellant asserted that ○○○○○ filed a claim for cancellation of the registration of creation of a mortgage against Nonparty 1 and that ○○○○○○ gave up the claim for cancellation on the ground that the registration of establishment of a mortgage under the name of Nonparty 1 was null and void, and that ○○○○ would allow the auction of the instant case, which was in progress at the time, would be contrary to the res judicata effect of the above conciliation protocol, and that ○○○○’s objection against the order to deliver the instant real estate was contrary to the principle of good faith, and that ○○○ gave up the source of possession right of the instant real estate through the above conciliation. However, the Re-Appellant did not assert the above argument until the lower court, and the effect of the conciliation did not extend to the Re-Appellant, and it cannot be deemed that ○○○○ renounced renounced renounced the ownership right as the source of possession right of the instant real estate

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

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)