If the basic property of a school juristic person is adjudication by a compulsory auction without permission of the supervisory authority, the validity of the registration of transfer of ownership made on the ground of such adjudication.

Article 28 (1) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4266 of Apr. 7, 1990) provides that when a school foundation intends to sell, donate, lease, exchange, or offer its basic property for security, or to bear obligations or waive its rights, it shall obtain permission from the supervisory authority. Thus, the transfer of basic property shall be prohibited if the school foundation transfers it by its intention as well as where it transfers it by compulsory auction procedure, without permission from the supervisory authority. Therefore, even if the basic property of the school foundation was sold by compulsory auction procedure without permission from the supervisory authority and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the successful bidder has been made due to auction, the registration is a registration lacking legitimate cause.

Article 28 (1) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4266 of April 7, 1990)

Attorney Park Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and five defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and two others

Busan District Court Decision 93Na2848 delivered on July 14, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 28 (1) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 1990) provides that when a school foundation intends to sell, donate, lease, exchange, exchange, or offer as security, or to bear obligations or waive rights, it shall obtain permission from the supervisory authority. Thus, the transfer of basic property shall be prohibited if a school foundation transfers it by its intention as well as where it transfers it by compulsory auction procedure, and even if it transfers it by compulsory auction procedure, if a school foundation fails to obtain permission from the supervisory authority, the act of transfer shall be prohibited. Therefore, even if the basic property of the school foundation was sold by compulsory auction procedure without permission from the supervisory authority and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the successful bidder has been made by reason of auction, the registration shall be deemed as a

According to the records, the court below is just in holding that since the auction is permitted without the permission of the supervisory authority in the procedure for compulsory sale of the forest of this case and the registration of ownership transfer with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 has been made on the ground of the successful bid, the registration of ownership transfer should be invalid and the registration of ownership transfer with the remaining Defendants' names should also be cancelled as the registration of invalidity of cause. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and permission of the supervisory authority in the disposition of basic property of the school foundation. Although the plaintiff raised an objection or did not file an appeal against the decision of permission of the auction of this case on the ground that no permission of the supervisory authority was granted during the compulsory sale procedure of this case, seeking cancellation of each registration of this case made without cause is not contrary to the principle of good faith, and even if the decision of permission of the above successful bid became final, the acquisition of ownership due to auction cannot be asserted, and there is no reason for the court below's misapprehension of legal principles as to the good faith and compulsory sale of real property.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)