The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the president’s agreement on behalf of the president of the Plaintiff’s University on behalf of the Plaintiff’s University establishment constitutes an act of acting as an agent in breach of trust with regard to the Plaintiff’s establishment of the Plaintiff University, and that the said agreement was null and void.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s primary claim against the Defendant B University may be dismissed based on the above agreement.

In addition, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff cannot be held liable for damages based on Article 35 or 756 of the Civil Act, on the ground that the president of the B University did not act as above within the lawful scope of duties of the representative of the Defendant B University, on the grounds that the Plaintiff knew or was not aware of at least gross negligence.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's preliminary claim against the defendant B University's establishment council was dismissed.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the act of acting as an agent in breach of trust and the other party’s malicious negligence under Article 35 or 756 of the Civil Act

2. As to Defendant Republic of Korea’s ground of appeal

A. The Plaintiff, as to the violation of jurisdiction, is seeking the payment of the termination price upon the termination of the concession agreement upon the primary claim against the Defendant Republic of Korea.

In other words, as the concession agreement between the defendant Republic of Korea and C (hereinafter “C”) terminates, the defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to pay the termination payment to C, and the plaintiff has established a pledge right on the above payment claim. Thus, the defendant Republic of Korea has terminated payment to the plaintiff, a pledge right holder.