Plaintiff

The Superintendent of the Office of Education of Chungcheongnam-do (Law Firm Han field, Attorneys Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 14, 2011

Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Guhap3727 Decided December 22, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The rejection disposition issued by the head of the office of education of the Chungcheongnam-do Office of Education on June 3, 2010 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff added the following judgments concerning the newly asserted matters in the trial; (b) the second part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance “the basic property” shall be deemed “basic property”; (c) the third part “ July 3, 2010” shall be deemed “ July 2, 2010”; and (d) the fourth part “private school” in the fourth part shall be deemed “private school” as “private school”; and (e) the fourth part shall be deemed as being stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main part of Article 420 of

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the instant real estate is not an asset prohibited from compulsory execution under the Private School Act, it shall be interpreted that Article 28(1) of the Private School Act does not apply to cases where the Plaintiff, a creditor, executes compulsory execution on the instant real estate in order to obtain repayment of claims.

2) In the event that the Plaintiff, a creditor, imposes compulsory execution on the instant real estate, he/she shall be deemed to be able to file an application for permission on disposal of fundamental property with

B. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

If the plaintiff asserts, in the compulsory auction procedure for the real estate of this case, if the execution court makes a decision on the refusal of sale due to the lack of permission from the competent authorities under Article 28(1) of the Private School Act, it is not necessary to institute an administrative litigation against the defendant for the cancellation of the disposition of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case cannot be deemed as a benefit of lawsuit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's first argument cannot be accepted.

2) Determination on the second argument

Even though it is impossible to repay debts without disposing of basic property due to the absence of other property in a school juristic person, it is not possible to claim against the school juristic person which does not wish to dispose of basic property solely on the ground that it is necessary to substantially realize a claim for compulsory performance, which is merely a monetary claimant, to the Plaintiff, as a mere monetary claimant, to fulfill the procedure for requesting the competent agency to dispose of basic property (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da19202, 19219, Aug. 21, 1998). In addition, it is not possible to apply for subrogation by a bypassing method. In addition, in this case, the Plaintiff directly applied for disposition of basic property

Therefore, the plaintiff's second argument cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Shin Jae-op (Presiding Judge)