In cases where a person who purchased an endowment of a school juristic person begins possession of the endowment upon the delivery of it, knowing that the contract has been concluded without permission of the competent agency, whether possession is recognized frequently (negative)

If a purchaser of an endowment of a school juristic person commences possession of the object upon delivery, with the knowledge of the fact that the contract has been concluded without permission of the competent agency, such possession shall not be recognized as possession independently.

Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da449 Decided July 25, 1978 (Gong1978, 11019) 78Da991 Decided November 14, 1978 (Gong1979, 11607) 79Da1806 Decided December 26, 1979 (Gong1980, 12494)

Plaintiff 1 and one other plaintiffs' attorney Lee Han-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the school juristic person

Daegu District Court Decision 90Na8761 delivered on September 20, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

As to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal

1. The lower court determined that the sales contract was null and void on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ mother Nonparty 1 purchased forest land in the instant industrial complex from the Defendant, which is its fundamental property, but no evidence was found to prove that the permission by the competent authorities was granted.

The judgment of the court below that recognized the above real estate as the defendant's fundamental property, or that the above real estate was invalid as a sales contract without obtaining permission from the competent authorities in violation of Article 28 (1) of the Private School Act is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles, such

2. The court below found it reasonable to view that the above non-party 1 was aware of the fact that the non-party 2 was in office as the chief of the general affairs of the defendant's private teaching institute at the time of the sales contract and recommended the non-party 1 to purchase the real estate of this case to the non-party 1, who was the witness of the sales contract, and that the defendant was aware of the fact that the sales contract becomes null and void because it was not permitted by the competent agency in selling the above real estate. The above non-party 1 purchased the above real estate and cultivated the above real estate by the above non-party 2, and actively used the forest, such as installing his father's seedlings, etc. at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract of this case or the commencement of possession thereof. The above fact-finding by the court below is just and it does not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, etc.

If a purchaser of basic property of a school juristic person begins possession of the property with the knowledge of the fact that the contract was concluded without permission of the competent agency, the possession in such a case cannot be recognized as possession independently (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da991 delivered on November 14, 1978; Supreme Court Decision 79Da1806 delivered on December 26, 1979).

In the same purport, the court below's decision that did not recognize the intention of ownership to the above non-party 1 is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. There

All appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho