Source photo” alt=”A view of the Supreme Court. <한겨레> Material photo” />
The view of the Supreme Court. Base photo
The Supreme Court judged that private kindergartens should not arbitrarily make’public usage fees for private property’, which are not included in the budget category, and transfer the budget to the account of the kindergarten or founder. The 2nd Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge Kim Sang-hwan) announced on the 15th that it has confirmed the court case that the plaintiff lost the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the director of a private kindergarten or an executive of a private kindergarten to cancel the disposition of notifying the results of the audit against the superintendent of the Jeonju Education Support Office in Jeonbuk. . The 18 private kindergartens operated by Mr. A and others were randomly newly created in the Jeonbuk Office of Education’s comprehensive audit conducted by the Ministry of Education in April 2017 and allocated 1.4 billion won to the appropriate budget, and then 800 million won in a separate account. They filed a lawsuit when they were notified of the results of the audit requesting that the amount be taxed to the kindergarten accounting account for transferring the money. In the court, Mr. A and others said, “The budget prepared for public use of private property corresponds to’expenses for facilities and facilities directly necessary for school education’ in the Private School Act,” and “when notifying the audit result, the opportunity to submit prior opinions is not given. There is a procedural flaw.” However, even if both the first and second trials can interpret “the literary meaning of public use of private property as’the fee for using private property to implement public early childhood education,’ as explained by Mr. As the expenditure on accounting expenses, it cannot be considered to fall under the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act.” Considering the fact that a large amount of money was withdrawn in the name of public use of private property and transferred to an account in the name of the kindergarten or the founder, the competent supervisory authority did not know at all what purpose the budget was used. This is to the effect that it cannot be interpreted as’appropriate usage fees for deterioration of private kindergarten buildings and facilities’. The Supreme Court also said, “It is not allowed to make budget expenditures in the so-called public usage fee of private property in the sense that the establishment and manager of a private kindergarten is paid for the use of teaching papers and teachers, and this violates the property rights of the establishment and management of private schools. It can’t be regarded as such,” he dismissed the appeal. By Jo Yoon-young, staff reporter