The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The main text of Article 35 of the former Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies (amended by Act No. 10898, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter “former Subsidy Act”) provides that “The subsidized operator shall not use, transfer, exchange, lend, or provide as a security, important property acquired with subsidies or whose utility has increased and which is determined by the Presidential Decree, for purposes inconsistent with the purpose of granting subsidies, even after the completion of the subsidized project in question without approval from the head of the central government agency.”

The legislative purpose of the above provision is to continuously secure the appropriate management and the effectiveness of subsidy for a subsidized project by preventing the property acquired through a subsidy granted by the national budget from being used or disposed of for any purpose other than the purpose of the provision. Therefore, the above provision shall be deemed to be an effective provision, not a regulation provision.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5556 Decided October 28, 2004, etc.). Meanwhile, the main text of Article 23(3) of the former Social Welfare Services Act (amended by Act No. 10997, Aug. 4, 2011; hereinafter the same) provides that “a social welfare corporation shall obtain permission from the Minister of Health and Welfare where it intends to sell, donate, exchange, lease, provide security, or change the use of its fundamental property.”

The purpose of the above provision is to promote the sound development of social welfare corporations by ensuring the smooth management and maintenance of their property and the appropriateness of their finances in consideration of the special nature of the social welfare corporations, and to have the social welfare corporations faithful to their original purpose of business.

(see Constitutional Court Order 2004Hun-Ba10, Feb. 3, 2005). In addition, the above provision is a mandatory provision, and it is invalid even if a social welfare foundation disposes of its basic property without permission of the Minister of Health and Welfare in violation of it.

Supreme Court Decision 2003No. 2003