[1] In the case of termination of title trust which is not only a return of the basic property of a school foundation to its actual owner, whether the competent authorities may refuse to grant permission under Article 28 of the Private School Act (negative)

[2] In a case where a school foundation refuses to express its intention to apply for permission to the competent agency and a truster submits an authentic copy of a final and conclusive judgment substituting such a declaration even though the title trust relationship of the school foundation’s fundamental property was terminated, whether such permission may be refused on the ground that it failed to submit

[1] 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. The purpose is to promote the sound development of a private school by preventing a school foundation established for the establishment and operation 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 the school foundation because it is merely returning its name to the actual owner, the object is the basic property of the school foundation, even though it is the basic property of the title trustee, the object is not applied by 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, school sites, etc. used directly for education, or the offer of security, and the competent

[2] Where a truster refuses to express his/her intent to dispose of the basic property of a school juristic person and a truster submits an original or a certified copy of the judgment to the competent agency by refusing to declare his/her intention to the competent agency even though the title trust relation with the basic property of the school juristic person was terminated, the entrusted school juristic person shall be deemed to have filed an application for permission directly with the competent agency pursuant to Article 695 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the competent agency shall not refuse to grant permission on the ground that a copy of the meeting of the board of directors under Article 11(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private

[1] Article 28 of the Private School Act, Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act / [2] Article 28 of the Private School Act, Article 389(2) of the Civil Act, Article 695 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 11(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Da549 delivered on November 8, 1983 (Gong1984, 24) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 81Nu275 delivered on February 28, 1984 (Gong1984, 607) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu22784 delivered on September 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 280), Supreme Court Decision 93Da62478 delivered on May 9, 195 (Gong195, 2076)

The Korea Veterans Association of the Korea Veterans Association (Attorney above-law, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

(Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

A school juristic person, the South Korean National Institute of Education (Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu9170 delivered on July 23, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, even if the plaintiff was established as a branch church of the Korea Doctrine Doctrine, based on the evidence of this case, and was donated all the property belonging to the above school from the Foundation of the Korea Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine 2 on May 1963, 1963, but was not established by the plaintiff's affiliated school foundation on convenience, the non-party 1, the only school foundation located in the area south Doctrine Doctrine 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Doctrine Doctrine 2") was rejected on March 31, 1964 in the name of the plaintiff 9, the court below determined that the title trust relation was established between the plaintiff 2 and the above Doctrine Doctrine 2 on the ground that the above school was rejected on March 1, 1993 by expanding the size of the school while independently operating the above school, and that the plaintiff still acquired the above school foundation's title trust.

The Second Ground of Appeal

According to the records, the court below determined that the actual establishment and management entity of the above school is the plaintiff, and the basic property of the above school is a nominal owner, and it is just to determine that the title trust relationship was established between the plaintiff and the above school foundation without examining the relationship between the school foundation which has established and operated the school, such as theory of lawsuit, and the basic property of the above school, without examining the relationship between the school foundation which has established and operated the school. There is no error of misconception of facts that recognized the establishment of the title trust relationship. The argument is without merit.

The First Ground for Appeal

The purpose of Article 28(1) of the Private School Act is to ensure the sound development of private schools by preventing an incorporated school foundation established for the establishment and management of a private school from unfairly reducing its basic property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Da549, Nov. 8, 1983). Thus, where a title trust is terminated without any influence on the substantial fundamental property of the school foundation, even though the title of the school foundation is a basic property of the title trustee, the object of the title trust is neither the application of Article 28(2) 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 the provision of security, nor the competent agency, unless there are special circumstances. Thus, the title truster, despite the termination of a title trust relationship of the school foundation with respect to the basic property, refuses to grant permission to the competent agency for the disposal of the basic property and thereby, did not directly submit an original copy of the judgment or a certified copy of the final judgment under Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

The court below's decision is erroneous in finding that the plaintiff applied for permission for the disposal of fundamental property of this case on the basis of a final judgment in lieu of the application for permission for a school of Honam-do, but it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and the remaining points are justified as stated in the above decision of the party members, and there is no error of law as to scenarios under Article 28 (1) of the Private School Act, such as theory of lawsuit, etc.

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)