Whether Article 28 (2) of the Private School Act prohibiting the sale of teachers and school sites directly used for education or offering as security applies to the transfer of ownership due to the termination of title trust (negative)

The purpose of Article 28 (1) of the Private School Act is to ensure the sound development of private schools by preventing an educational foundation established for the establishment and management of a private school from unfairly reducing its basic property. Thus, in a case where a title trust is terminated without any influence on the basic property of a school foundation due to the reason that it is nothing more than returning its name to the actual owner, the subject is the basic property of a title trustee, even if the subject is the basic property of a title trustee, the provisions of Article 28 (2) of the Private School Act and Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act prohibiting the sale or offering of teachers, school sites, etc. directly used for education and the provision of security are not applied

Article 28 (2) of the Private School Act, Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Da549 delivered on November 8, 1983 (Gong1984, 24) Supreme Court Decision 96Da55693 delivered on March 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1103), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu14538 delivered on December 26, 1997 (Gong198Sang, 427), Supreme Court Decision 97Da54284 delivered on April 24, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1453)

The Korea National Assembly of the Korea National Assembly of the Korea National Assembly of the Republic of Korea (Attorney Yang Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. A person who intends to obtain permission from the Minister of Education, Science and Technology

Gwangju High Court Decision 96Na5079 delivered on February 5, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed after the lapse of the submission period and supplementary appellate briefs not timely filed by the Attorney Han-sung) by the Attorney Park Jong-chul are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence produced by the court below, and judged that the real estate of this case was a title trust to the defendant. In light of the records, such recognition and judgment of the court below is reasonable, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The ground of appeal is without merit because it is merely erroneous in the judgment of the court below on the premise that the determination of the evidence belonging to the exclusive right of the court below and the recognition of facts are criticized or inconsistent with the facts recognized by the court below

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 28 (1) of the Private School Act provides that a school foundation shall obtain permission from the competent authorities when it intends to dispose of its basic property, is seeking the sound development of a private school by preventing an educational foundation established for the establishment and management of a private school from unfairly reducing its basic property (see Supreme Court Decision 83Da549, Nov. 8, 1983). Thus, where a title trust is terminated without any influence on the basic property of a school foundation due to the reason that it is merely returning its name to its actual owner, even if the subject matter is the basic property of a title trust, the provisions of Article 28 (2) of the Private School Act and Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act prohibiting the sale of teachers and school sites directly used for education or offering its collateral (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu14538, Dec. 26, 1997).

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the termination of title trust on the condition that the plaintiff is permitted to dispose of the real estate of this case by the competent authorities is reasonable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles under

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)