Whether compulsory execution against a deposit claim that includes a property belonging to the accounts of school expenses of a school juristic person is appropriate (affirmative)

Article 29 of the Private School Act, Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, and Articles 6 and 21 of the Financial and Accounting Rules, which govern the school accounting of private schools, are merely a regulation that regulates the internal relations of the school foundation for the purpose of promoting the sound development of private schools, and cannot be deemed a regulation that regulates the internal relations of the school foundation in external relations. Therefore, even if a school foundation deposits admission fees, tuition fees, etc. equivalent to the revenues from school expense accounts of the school foundation among deposit claims in the name of the school foundation and the property directly used for school education is included in such property, the creditor of the school foundation cannot be deemed to be prohibited from compulsory execution such as seizure of such deposit claims.

Articles 28 and 29 of the Private School Act; Articles 5, 13, 6, and 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act; Articles 57 and 579 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 91Ma229 dated May 20, 1991 (Gong1991, 1894), Supreme Court Order 96Ma1302, 1303 Decided December 24, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 527)

Seowon Institute of Private Teaching (Law Firm, Attorneys Park Jong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Cheongju District Court Order 97Ra20 dated March 18, 1997

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party applied for a seizure and collection order on January 31, 1997 against the non-party's ordinary deposit claims which the non-party had in the office of the Seoju District Court 96Na1505 ("Cheongju District Court 96Na1505") to the non-party, a school juristic person, for a seizure and collection order on the above deposit claims as of February 1, 1997. The above court issued a seizure and collection order on the above deposit claims as of February 1, 1997. Among the above deposit claims, the above deposit claims are deposited in the name of the school juristic person, such as admission fees, tuition fees, school membership fees, school membership fees, etc., and thus, the above provisional seizure collection order of this case constitutes the basic property of the non-appellant, and thus, it is not a basic property of the above school juristic person and its basic property subject to prohibition of sale under Article 28 (1) and (2) of the Private School Act.

Article 29 of the Private School Act provides that the accounts of the school foundation shall be divided into accounts belonging to the school foundation established and operated by the school foundation (paragraph (1)), and the accounts of the school may be divided into accounts of school expenses and accounts of affiliated hospitals (paragraph (2)). The budget of the accounts belonging to the school shall be executed by the head of the school (paragraph (4). The revenue of the accounts of school expenses shall not be transferred or lent to other accounts (paragraph (6). The revenue of the accounts of school expenses shall be the revenue of entrance fees, tuition fees, etc. (paragraph (1). The revenue of the accounts of school expenses shall be the revenue of the school foundation and the expenditure of the school expenses shall be the expenses directly necessary for school education (paragraph (2). The revenue of the school foundation and the accounts of the school shall be deemed to be legitimate as the revenue of the school foundation and the accounts of the school pursuant to Article 33 of the same Act. Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act provides that the funds of the school foundation and the accounts of the school shall not be used directly for the accounts (Article 97).2).

Ultimately, the court below's rejection of the claim of this case's deposit claim of this case is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to basic property of private school Article 29 of the Private School Act or private school as otherwise asserted in the ground of reappeal.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)