Open Decision Ledger · Corporate law & governance
Only the court or board of liquidators may remove a liquidator
Supreme Court, Mar. 28, 2024, 2023Da252209 (judgment)
Case name: 이사회결의부존재및무효확인·이사회결의부존재및무효확인의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Once a school corporation has been dissolved and a liquidator appointed, does a board of directors composed of the pre-dissolution directors have authority to remove that liquidator and appoint a new one?
Holding
No, in principle. Although Article 16(1)(iv) of the Private School Act gives the board of directors of a school corporation the task of deliberating and resolving on the appointment and removal of its officers, a dissolved school corporation acts within the purposes of liquidation through its liquidator, who stands in for the directors and handles all its affairs in that range. Once a liquidator has been appointed, only the court under Article 84 of the Civil Act or the board of liquidators may remove that liquidator; the board composed of the pre-dissolution directors may not do so unless there are special circumstances.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 학교법인이 해산하여 청산인이 선임된 후에는 법원(민법 제84조 참조) 또는 청산인회(사립학교법 제42조 제2항, 제18조, 제16조 제1항 제4호 참조)에 청산인을 해임할 권한이 있을 뿐, 해산하기 전의 이사들로 구성된 이사회에는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 청산인을 해임할 권한이 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, after a school corporation has been dissolved and a liquidator has been appointed, only the court (see Article 84 of the Civil Act) or the board of liquidators (see Article 42 (2), Article 18, and Article 16 (1) 4 of the Private School Act) has the authority to dismiss the liquidator, and the board of directors composed of the directors who served before the dissolution has no authority to dismiss the liquidator, absent special circumstances.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 원고 1 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다. 원고 학교법인 △△학원의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Plaintiff 1 is reversed, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court. The final appeal of the plaintiff school corporation △△ Academy is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
학교법인이 해산하여 청산인이 선임된 후에는 법원(민법 제84조 참조) 또는 청산인회(사립학교법 제42조 제2항, 제18조, 제16조 제1항 제4호 참조)에 청산인을 해임할 권한이 있을 뿐
Unofficial English translation
After a school corporation has been dissolved and a liquidator has been appointed, only the court (see Article 84 of the Civil Act) or the board of liquidators (see Article 42 (2), Article 18, and Article 16 (1) 4 of the Private School Act) has the authority to dismiss the liquidator
Factors
- 사립학교법은 학교법인의 이사회에서 임원의 임면에 관한 사항을 심의·의결하도록 한다(제16조 제1항 제4호)
- 학교법인은 해산한 경우 청산의 목적범위 내에서 권리·의무의 주체가 되고
- 그 청산인은 학교법인의 사무집행기관이자 대표기관으로서 이사에 갈음하여 청산의 목적범위 내에 있는 학교법인의 모든 사무를 처리할 권한을 가진다
- 법원(민법 제84조 참조) 또는 청산인회(사립학교법 제42조 제2항, 제18조, 제16조 제1항 제4호 참조)에 청산인을 해임할 권한이 있을 뿐
- 해산하기 전의 이사들로 구성된 이사회에는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 청산인을 해임할 권한이 없다
Unofficial English translation
• The Private School Act provides that matters concerning the appointment and dismissal of officers shall be deliberated upon and resolved by the board of directors of the school corporation (Article 16 (1) 4)
• Where a school corporation has been dissolved, it remains the subject of rights and obligations within the scope of the purpose of liquidation, and
• the liquidator, as the organ of the administration of the affairs of the school corporation and its representative organ, has the authority, in lieu of the directors, to handle all affairs of the school corporation falling within the scope of the purpose of liquidation
• only the court (see Article 84 of the Civil Act) or the board of liquidators (see Article 42 (2), Article 18, and Article 16 (1) 4 of the Private School Act) has the authority to dismiss the liquidator
• and the board of directors composed of the directors who served before the dissolution has no authority to dismiss the liquidator, absent special circumstances
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
학교법인이 해산하여 청산인이 선임된 후에는 법원(민법 제84조 참조) 또는 청산인회(사립학교법 제42조 제2항, 제18조, 제16조 제1항 제4호 참조)에 청산인을 해임할 권한이 있을 뿐, 해산하기 전의 이사들로 구성된 이사회에는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 청산인을 해임할 권한이 없다.
Unofficial English translation
After a school corporation has been dissolved and a liquidator has been appointed, only the court (see Article 84 of the Civil Act) or the board of liquidators (see Article 42 (2), Article 18, and Article 16 (1) 4 of the Private School Act) has the authority to dismiss the liquidator, and the board of directors composed of the directors who served before the dissolution has no authority to dismiss the liquidator, absent special circumstances.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances, if any, would give a board composed of the pre-dissolution directors authority to remove a liquidator appointed after the school corporation's dissolution?
The remand judgment of the Daejeon High Court, once it examines the lawfulness of Plaintiff 1's appointment as liquidator on 26 May 2020, would show how this rule bears on admissibility. Any amendment to Article 42 of the Private School Act or Articles 81, 84 and 87 of the Civil Act, or a later decision defining the special circumstances reserved here, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-26
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The source states the dismissal rule without citing prior decisions, so it can be read as stating a new rule or as having no verifiable precedent relation.
학교법인이 해산하여 청산인이 선임된 후에는 법원(민법 제84조 참조) 또는 청산인회(사립학교법 제42조 제2항, 제18조, 제16조 제1항 제4호 참조)에 청산인을 해임할 권한이 있을 뿐, 해산하기 전의 이사들로 구성된 이사회에는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 청산인을 해임할 권한이 없다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daejeon High Court, in its judgment of 14 June 2023 (2022Na16015, 16022), upheld the first-instance judgment dismissing Plaintiff 1's claim. It reasoned that even after a school corporation is dissolved and a liquidator appointed, the directors and the board continue to exist within the purposes of liquidation and hold authority to instruct the liquidator's administration and to appoint and remove officers, so the board resolutions of 12 January 2022 and 10 June 2022 were valid.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below misapprehended the law on removing a liquidator in a dissolved school corporation and on the board's powers after dissolution, and that the error affected the judgment. It reversed the part of the judgment concerning Plaintiff 1 and remanded, adding that the court below must further examine on remand whether Plaintiff 1 was appointed on 26 May 2020 by a lawful appointing authority through lawful procedures, an issue bearing on the admissibility of the suit. It found no error in the dismissal of the school corporation's own action for lack of interest in a declaration of invalidity and dismissed that appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A removal of the liquidator by the court under Article 84 of the Civil Act or by the board of liquidators under Article 42(2) and Article 18 of the Private School Act, since the decision places the removal power in those bodies.
- A case in which special circumstances give the pre-dissolution board authority to remove the liquidator, which the decision leaves open by its phrase 'unless there are special circumstances'.
- A dispute about a person who was not lawfully appointed liquidator in the first place, since the Court directed the court below to examine the lawfulness of the appointment of 26 May 2020 on remand.
Record verification notes
Confirm first that the corporation was dissolved with the approval of the Minister of Education, here obtained on 14 March 2017, and that a liquidator was lawfully appointed, since the validity of any removal of that liquidator depends on it. Then identify the body that resolved to remove the person: a board of the pre-dissolution directors, a board of liquidators, or the court, and look for the special circumstances the decision reserved. The entry does not decide whether a liquidator who was not lawfully appointed can claim the protection of this rule.
From the official text
Points at issue
학교법인이 해산하여 청산인이 선임된 경우, 해산 전 이사들로 구성된 이사회가 청산인을 해임할 권한이 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where a school corporation has been dissolved and a liquidator has been appointed, the board of directors composed of the directors who served before the dissolution has the authority to dismiss the liquidator (in principle, negative)
Summary of the holding
사립학교법은 학교법인의 이사회에서 임원의 임면에 관한 사항을 심의·의결하도록 한다(제16조 제1항 제4호). 그런데 학교법인은 해산한 경우 청산의 목적범위 내에서 권리·의무의 주체가 되고(사립학교법 제42조 제1항, 민법 제81조 참조), 그 청산인은 학교법인의 사무집행기관이자 대표기관으로서 이사에 갈음하여 청산의 목적범위 내에 있는 학교법인의 모든 사무를 처리할 권한을 가진다(사립학교법 제42조 제1항, 민법 제87조 참조). 따라서 학교법인이 해산하여 청산인이 선임된 후에는 법원(민법 제84조 참조) 또는 청산인회(사립학교법 제42조 제2항, 제18조, 제16조 제1항 제4호 참조)에 청산인을 해임할 권한이 있을 뿐, 해산하기 전의 이사들로 구성된 이사회에는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 청산인을 해임할 권한이 없다.
Order
원심판결 중 원고 1 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다. 원고 학교법인 △△학원의 상고를 기각한다. 상고비용 중 원고 학교법인 △△학원의 상고로 인한 부분은 위 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Plaintiff 1 is reversed, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court. The final appeal of the plaintiff school corporation △△ Academy is dismissed. Of the costs of the final appeal, the portion attributable to the final appeal of the plaintiff school corporation △△ Academy shall be borne by said plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
사립학교법 제16조 제1항 제4호, 제18조, 제42조 제1항, 제2항, 민법 제81조, 제84조, 제87조
Read 2026-10-26 · Cross-read 2026-10-26. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger