Effect of a juristic act done by the promoters of a foundation

The promoters of an incorporated foundation may receive a donation of property by preparation for obtaining authorization for the incorporation, and may conduct title trust of the registration, and the effect of such a juristic act shall naturally succeed to it at the same time as the corporation acquires the legal personality.

Article 48 of the Civil Act

The representative of the Foundation, the president of the Foundation, Kim Hong-man, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Defendant 1 and 11 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na772,773 delivered on October 25, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The defendants' attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

However, the decision of the court below is justified in dismissing the defendants' appeal in its entirety, on the ground that the defendants ordered the plaintiff to transfer their ownership rights according to the ratio of shares acquired by inheritance as in the original form. This does not mean that the court below ordered the defendants to transfer their ownership rights to the plaintiff in accordance with the above ratio of shares acquired by the defendants as in original form.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are examined.

However, even if “A” corporation, a telegraphic body of the Plaintiff foundation, obtained the authorization of establishment in March 30, 1949, and acquired the legal personality as non-party, the preparation for obtaining the authorization of establishment of the said corporation can be the promoters, and the promoters can receive the donation of property for this purpose, and the effect of such legal act can then be duly authorized to establish the said corporation and shall be succeeded to the title trust at the same time as the acquisition of the legal personality. Therefore, in this case, the lower court determined that “A” corporation, a telegraphic body of the Plaintiff Foundation, received the gift of the instant real estate in February 6, 1948, the authorization of establishment of the Plaintiff Foundation, and received the return of the said real estate in the form of a contribution act on January 10, 1949, it is justifiable in the first instance court judgment cited by the original judgment, and that the portion inconsistent with the evidence No. 2-10 of the theory and the testimony of Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 is dismissed.

The Defendants’ ground of appeal No. 4 is examined.

However, since Article 10 of the Addenda to the Civil Code does not mean that the right to claim registration under the real estate sales contract shall be extinguished, the argument on this point shall not be employed.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

However, it is natural that the trust contract termination right can not be extinguished by the extinctive prescription unless the ownership is extinguished by prescription.

There is no reason for this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on the grounds that the appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95, 93, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs of the appeal.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)