A. Whether Article 28 of the Private School Act violates the principle of equality

B. Whether Article 28 of the Private School Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act infringe on the property rights of a person who has trusted real estate to an educational foundation

A. Article 28 of the Private School Act provides that a school juristic person shall obtain permission from the supervisory authority when it intends to dispose of its basic property, is aimed at promoting the sound development of a private school by preventing a school juristic person established for the purpose of establishing and operating a private school from unfairly reducing its basic property. Thus, this provision cannot be deemed to violate the Constitution on equality or the constitutional spirit.

B. Even if real estate trusted to a school juristic person was the basic property of the school juristic person pursuant to Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, the title truster who terminated the title trust can receive a refund from the school juristic person upon the permission of the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 28 of the Private School Act. Thus, the above provisions do not violate the constitutional spirit concerning the guarantee of property rights, as they deprive the title truster of his/her rights.

A. Article 28 of the Private School Act, Article 10 of the Constitution, Article 28 of the Private School Act, Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, Article 22 of the Constitution

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Park Jin-jin, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Na2255 delivered on July 12, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The purpose of Article 28 of the Private School Act is to promote the sound development of private schools by allowing a school foundation established for the purpose of establishing and operating a private school to have the property necessary for the management of the school at all times by preventing unjust reduction of its basic property, so that the school foundation can always have the property necessary for the management of the school. Therefore, the above provision has reasonable grounds in that regard, and it cannot be said that it violates the Constitution or constitutional spirit on equality.

In addition, even if real estate trusted to a school juristic person is a basic property of the school juristic person pursuant to Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, a title truster who has terminated the title trust can return it with the permission of the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 28 of the Private School Act. Thus, the above provisions cannot be said to be a provision that deprives a title truster of his rights.

The theory of unconstitutionality that the above provisions are an infringement of property rights under the premise that the person who held a title trust of the real estate owned by the school juristic person is deprived of the rights of the person who held the title trust of the real estate.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)