Owners of public school facilities located in Gun at the time of the enforcement of the Gu Education Act;

At the time of enforcement of the former Education Act (amended by Act No. 955 of Jan. 6, 1962), buildings, sites, playgrounds, training areas, etc. are owned by all the public schools located in the Gun.

Article 27 of the former Education Act

Attorney Kim Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Llish District Court Decision 201Na1548 delivered on August 1, 20

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na192 delivered on June 12, 1980

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Based on its reasoning, the lower court concluded that, with the consent of the Defendant’s military forces, Nonparty 1 agreed to mutually exchange each ownership of the ( Address omitted) of the (v) portion 118, 108, 258, and 108, 108, 258, and 108, 108, 258, the land was distributed and repaid at the time by Nonparty 2, in order to expand the school playgrounds at the time of the above school.

2. Article 15 of the Education Act (amended by Act No. 86, Dec. 1, 1951; Act No. 228, Dec. 1, 1951) which was in force at the time has an educational district as a unit of Gun, and Article 16 is an educational district. Unless there are special provisions under the command and supervision of the first Do governor, the Minister of Home Affairs and the Minister of Home Affairs for delivery, and Article 17 provides that the educational district shall establish and manage national schools necessary for attending all school-aged children within the district, and Article 19 provides that the Gu Education Committee shall be established within the educational district and Article 27 shall require resolution of the Gu Education Committee to take effect (5) and the establishment of a new base of a school and contracts for the education district, and Article 29 of the Education Gu shall have no authority to exchange the above educational district with the head of the Gun under its jurisdiction at the time of the amendment of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that there is no authority to do so at the time of the school.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the attribution of school property, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the attribution of school property, and without proceeding to decide on other issues, the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is delivered with the assent of all Justices involved in the reversal and return, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)