 |
| A panoramic view of the Supreme Court building in Seocho-gu, Seoul. 2018.6.17/News 1 © News1 Reporter Park Se-yeon |
The Supreme Court judged that private kindergarten directors or managers are not allowed to make budget expenditures in the category of’public usage fees for private property’, and this cannot be seen as infringing on the manager’s property rights.
The second division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge Kim Sang-hwan) announced on the 15th that it was confirmed on the 15th that the plaintiff lost the plaintiff in a lawsuit for canceling the disposition of notification of audit results filed by Mr. Yoon and Mr. Seo against the Jeonju Office of Education in Jeollabuk-do.
The Ministry of Education conducted a comprehensive audit of the Jeollabuk-do Office of Education from April 17th to 28th, 2017, and then told the Jeonju Office of Education,’Inappropriate cases in which the budget and execution of private property public use fees of 18 private kindergartens, including the Jeollabuk-do Office of Education, are in violation of the Private School Act. ‘The result of the audit was notified.
Accordingly, the Jeonju Office of Education pointed out that Seo pointed out that “when the budget was organized, the budget item for’public usage of private property’, which was not in the budget course system, was arbitrarily newly created, organized into a budget, and then transferred to a separate account rather than a kindergarten account.” On December 4 of the same year, Mr. Seo was ordered to take tax measures for 36 million won in 2015 and 16 million won in 2016 to the kindergarten accounting account.
Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act stipulates that’the expenditure on school expenses should be made with expenses directly necessary for school education, such as personnel expenses and property expenses necessary for school operation’. In addition, according to the financial accounting rules of private academic institutions, the expenditure budget for accounts belonging to the school cannot be used for purposes other than those specified in the relevant rules, and the school expenses accounting cannot be transferred to other accounts.
In response, Seo and others filed a lawsuit against the Jeonju Office of Education to cancel the disposition of notifying the test results.
At the trial, Mr. Seo and others argued that the budget organized as’public usage fees for private property’ corresponds to’expenses for facilities and facilities directly necessary for school education’ in the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act. It also argued that the Jeonju Education Support Office did not give advance notice or an opportunity to submit opinions, so there were procedural defects, and there was no authority to order the Jeonju Education Support Office to audit the accounting and take corrective actions according to the results.
The first trial did not accept the claim of’procedural defects’, saying that there seems to be no obstacle in making a statement of opinion in the process of requesting the confirmation letter, after confirming the misconduct requested by Seo’s Jeonju Education Support Office.
In addition, the Jeonju Education Support Office, a superintendent of education commissioned by the superintendent of education, a private kindergarten’s guidance and supervisory institution, can exercise the audit authority for budget planning and execution, and judged that the acts of Mr. Seo and others violate the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act.
2 In view of the fact that the Jeonju Education Support Office has notified Seo and others that there is no grounds for “private property is public use fees” since 2015, there are no defects in the procedure, and the Jeonju Education Support Authority exercised the audit authority. Also judged that it was legal.
In addition, “the act of transferring money from a kindergarten’s school expenses account to another account may not only violate the Private School Act, but also pose a risk that the educational budget for kindergarten students and the budget for kindergarten management will be used for other purposes. Revealed.
The Supreme Court also believed that the court’s judgment was correct. The Supreme Court said, “It is not allowed to make budget expenditures in the so-called’public use fee of private property’ in order to pay the fees for the use of school grounds and teachers to the founder and manager of a private kindergarten. It cannot be seen as infringing on the property rights of the founding and managing schools.”
In addition, “private kindergartens are a non-profit educational institution that receives the same support, supervision, and control as national and public schools in accordance with educational laws and regulations, and is a non-profit educational institution that is authorized to be established on the premise of maintaining publicity.” “If the consideration for use of money can be included in the appropriation budget, each item of the budget that is strictly separated by law will have an irrational result that the distinction is meaningless.”