사립대학 학교법인의 해산과 잔여재산의 귀속

The current 「Private School Act」(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) requires that the residual property of a dissolved school juristic person should be reverted to ‘the persons designated in the articles of association’ in principle. The Act also requires that persons who receive the residual assets shall be selected from ‘managers of school juristic persons or any other educational enterprises’ in this case. This is to encourage the property contributed for the operation of private school to be continually reinvested in the private school's education even after the dissolution of school juristic person. However, contrary to the purpose of the Act, there are cases where private school managers who are responsible for the dissolution of a school juristic person due to embezzlement, accounting fraud, etc. have reverted the residual property privately and cause damage to other members such as faculty and staff. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a legal basis to prevent private reversion of school property to such imputable founders. In this regard, there have been various discussions on the amendment of Article 35 of the Act. In the beginning, some measures were discussed to allow the related residual property to be reverted exceptionally to the National Treasury, and to use it for the purpose of relieving the victims and supporting the university structural reform. However, the controversy over property right infringement and violation of the principle of proportionality has not been resolved smoothly, and it is currently under discussion to amend the Act to restrict the scope of persons who receive the residual assets. The discussion about such legislative improvements originated from the critical mind that the absurd situation, which would entitle the persons concerned to be responsible for the dissolution of school juristic person to the residual property, should not be neglected. Discussions on the disposal of the residual property of dissolved school juristic persons are now triggered by the closure of Seonam University and the dissolution of Seonam Academy. However, these may be serious social problems if the discussion and treatment of the structural reform of private universities become more serious in the future. Therefore, from now on, it is necessary to actively cope with the legal and institutional strategies and procedures for the dissolution of school juristic persons and the reversion of residual property.