Whether permission of a supervisory authority is required in cases where a school juristic person sells real estate held in title and an agreement is made to transfer ownership directly to the purchaser after acquiring such real estate (affirmative)

Article 28 (1) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 1990) provides that when a school foundation intends to sell, donate, exchange, change the purpose of use, offer as security, or bear obligations or waive rights, it shall obtain permission from the supervisory authority. Since Article 5 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that real estate shall be one of the basic property of a school foundation, real estate shall be sold under a title trust by a school foundation and a school foundation concludes a sales contract to transfer the ownership directly to the buyer, it requires permission from the supervisory authority prescribed by the same Act.

Article 28(1) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of April 7, 1990); Article 5(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act

Dongyang Development Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hongk Law, Attorneys Kim Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dog Private Teaching Institutes (Attorney Final White-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 97Na582 delivered on October 31, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed. The case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the third ground for appeal

Article 28 (1) of the Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226 of Apr. 7, 1990) provides that when a school foundation intends to sell, donate, exchange, change the purpose of use, offer as security, or bear obligations or waive rights, it shall obtain permission from the supervisory authority. Since Article 5 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act provides that real estate shall be one of the basic property of a school foundation, real estate shall be sold under a title trust by a school foundation and a school foundation concludes a sales contract to transfer its ownership directly to the buyer, it requires permission from the supervisory authority prescribed by the above Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the sales contract between the defendant and the plaintiff entered into without the supervisory authority's permission is null and void in this case where the defendant, a school juristic person, purchased the land from the non-party 1 and made the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, and the land in title trust to him does not belong to the defendant's fundamental property, and the defendant seeks the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party 3.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)