Borrowing money in violation of the provisions of Articles 26 and 28 of the Private School Act for employees of school juristic persons, and employers' responsibilities of such juristic persons.

Where an educational foundation borrows money from other persons without permission from the board of directors or a supervisory authority pursuant to Articles 16 and 28 of the Private School Act, such act of borrowing money has no effect on the above legal entity, but where an employee of the legal entity causes damage to other persons by borrowing money from other persons in connection with the execution of its business, the legal entity shall be liable as the employer.

Articles 16 and 28 of the Private School Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act

Freeboards and 25 others

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other than Defendant 1

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na2009 delivered on April 17, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney.

If the Defendant, a school juristic person, bears an obligation such as borrowing money from others, it shall undergo a resolution of the board of directors under Articles 16 and 28 of the Private School Act, and without obtaining permission from the supervisory authority, it shall not be effective, and for the purpose stipulated in Article 1 (a) of the same Act, it shall be pointed out that these provisions are stipulated. However, it is separate legal principles that denying the validity of the Defendant’s act of borrowing money in violation of these provisions, and that the Defendant is liable for damages caused by the Defendant’s act as an employer due to the Defendant’s failure to inflict damages on a third party in the course of performing his duties. Thus, it cannot be said that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Articles 16 and 28 of the Private School Act or dismissed the legislative intent of Article 1 of the same Act on the ground that the lower court denied the Defendant’s act of borrowing money in violation of these

2. The grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are examined together.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiffs' employees' duty and compensation amount, since it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above facts, since it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiffs' duty and compensation amount, since it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiffs' duty, since it did not appear that the non-party Kim Jong-Nam, in collusion with the first representative director of the defendant corporation and the school principal of the defendant corporation, who held office as the principal of the defendant corporation and the principal of the school under his jurisdiction, was appointed by another person, and the principal was actually excluded in the form of operation of the defendant corporation without different facts, and since the above Kim Jong-nam was fright's representative director and the principal of the defendant corporation's office, since the bank loans and the interest amount of the bonds have increased rapidly since the new school teacher newly constructed the school, it did not appear that the above payment of debts, the preparation of operating expenses, and part of the defendant corporation's office expenses were used.

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

Justices Lee Jong-woo (Presiding Justice)