Incorporation of the basic property of a foundation

Since an act of incorporation of a foundation's basic property is a matter that belongs to the change of contribution, it shall take effect only when the competent authority approves it.

Articles 45(3) and 42(2) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da568 Decided July 22, 1969

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) Attorney Lee Ho-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant)

Attorney Jeong Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na26,27 delivered on April 21, 1978

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

The court below determined that the defendant foundation's act of donation on August 4, 1958 (the act of donation on August 4, 1952, the act of donation on August 4, 1952, the act of donation on the part of the defendant foundation (the act of donation on August 4, 1958, the act of donation on August 4, 1958 seems to be an error of conversion on August 4, 1959) is an fundamental property of the defendant foundation, which is included in the act of donation on the part of the defendant foundation, the ownership of which was acquired by the defendant foundation on February 11, 1956 and January 18, 1957 by selecting evidence of its decision, and therefore, it is null and void if there is no fact that the consent of all the directors of the defendant foundation and the competent authorities to sell the basic property was obtained. Accordingly, the principal lawsuit claiming the registration of ownership transfer on the premise that this sale is legitimate, and there is no reason to believe that the plaintiff's counterclaim

However, as the court below presumed, if the defendant foundation incorporated this real estate into the basic property, this constitutes an alteration of the contribution act, and thus, it shall take effect only when the competent authority has finally authorized the contribution act of the defendant foundation (see this case, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67Da568, Jul. 23, 1969). However, the defendant foundation's list of the result of the examination of the court below submitted by the court below contains a large number of assets acquired by the defendant foundation during the period from 1965 to 1965. Thus, this list shall not be deemed to have been attached to the above contribution act at the time of the approval of change of the contribution act, and it shall not be deemed to have been the property list that was subject to the approval of the competent authority for the alteration of the contribution act of the defendant foundation or the authorization for it, even by evidence presented by the court below.

In addition, according to the legal brief of the defendant 12.8, which was stated in the 9th trial of December 9, 1977 at the court below, the defendant's legal representative stated in the 12.8th trial of December 9, 197, that there was no actual procedure for the alteration of the contribution act in a new transfer of basic property, and that only the list of property to be incorporated is reported to the competent authority, it can be said that there was no fact that there was no procedure for the alteration of the contribution act even

Therefore, the court below's decision that this case's real estate was an endowment of the defendant foundation without considering the above point in depth is ultimately affected by the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the basic property of the foundation foundation or recognizing facts without any evidence. Thus, the court below's judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)