학교법인 혹은 학교 운영권 등 처분 대금에 대한 '학교법인 실제 운영자'의 타인 재물 보관자 지위 성립 가능성 여부

The decision in intended to mean that the act of a natural person who arbitrarily spent the proceeds of the sale is not an act of emblezzleemnt, as the ownership of the proceeds from the sale belongs to a natural person, not a school corporation. This view stems from the very creative conception of the "actual operator of a school corporation" of the grand jury. However, the term "operating" is not clear on it's legal basis. In addition, it can be analyzed that the concept of managerial control under such a Private School Law is almost converging with zero. Moreover, a single natural person's management right of a school set up by a school corporation cannot be recognized under the Private School Law. Therefore, the concept of "the actual operator of a school corporation" does not allow only one natural person to have the right to dispose of a school corporation or private school. And in any case, the effect of the corporation board of directors' voting on disposal of school management rights, will only be attributed to that corporation. Thus, even if an individual influences that decision, the effect of that vote cannot be attributed to individual seeking private interest. Therefore, the ownership of 2.5 billion won in school disposal fees should be said to belong to the school corporation. So a person who received the money claiming to be the actual operator of a school coporation can be understood to have accepted the status of another person's property manager, and the act of spending the money arbitrary can be assessed as an act of emblezzlement.