Whether or not permission of the supervisory authority is required for the transfer of property prior to the enforcement of the Private School Act due to the enforcement of the above Act.

The transfer of property before the enforcement of the Private School Act shall not require the permission of the supervisory authority for the transfer of property even though the transferred property became an endowment due to the promulgation and enforcement of the above Act.

Articles 28 and 2 of the Private School Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others

accommodation of a school juristic person in the state;

Daegu District Court Decision 72Na247 delivered on July 31, 1973

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

Judgment on the first ground;

According to Gap evidence No. 3, the date when the donation contract of this case was concluded was enforced on May 1, 1957, which was the date of enforcement of the former Civil Act. Under the former Civil Act, the restriction on the representative director's power to represent the directors of the foundation was not registered, and thus, even if there is a restriction provision requiring a resolution of the board of directors with the authority of the representative director pursuant to the provisions of the contribution act, the foundation corporation cannot oppose a bona fide third party with the restriction of the representative director's power to represent. Therefore, it is without merit to argue that this donation is a contract made without the resolution of the board of directors, and thus it does not affect the defendant. In addition, in this case, the foundation acquired real estate for school management before the enforcement of the Private School Act, as well as part of it was for transfer for the purpose of acquiring it, and became the basic property due to the enforcement of the Private School Act's promulgation, even if it became the basic property, the foundation's fundamental property

Judgment on the second ground;

Since the seller of real estate has a duty to transfer the full ownership corresponding to the actual ownership of the buyer, even if the seller resells the real estate, it should not lose his right to claim for registration in order to perform the seller's obligation, so there is no argument contrary thereto.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Red Man-Man (Presiding Justice)