본문 바로가기
  • Home
Basic Search

The Conflict between the Principle of Residual Asset Reversion in Non-Profit Corporations and Article 19 of the Act on Support for Structural Improvement of Private Universities: Focusing on the Legal Limits of the Dissolution Settlement Payment System

  • Legal Theory & Practice Review
  • Abbr : LTPR
  • 2026, 14(2), pp.419~447
  • Publisher : The Korea Society for Legal Theory and Practice Inc.
  • Research Area : Social Science > Law
  • Received : May 7, 2026
  • Accepted : May 23, 2026
  • Published : May 31, 2026

Lee Sang hoon 1

1호서대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

This study examines the legal implications of Article 19 of the Act on Support for Structural Improvement of Private Universities, focusing on how the provision alters the existing legal framework governing the reversion of residual assets of dissolved private school corporations. Under the current legal system, the public nature of private school property has been gradually strengthened through Article 80 of the Civil Act, which provides for reversion to the National Treasury, Article 35 of the Private School Act, which limits reversion to school corporations or entities conducting educational activities, and the 2019 amendment to the Private School Act, which prevents residual assets from reverting to persons connected with corrupt private school operators. However, Article 19 of the Act on Support for Structural Improvement of Private Universities creates a new pathway through which part of the residual assets of a dissolved school corporation may be privately returned through the dissolution settlement payment system. This study argues that such a special provision creates significant tension with the non-distribution constraint inherent in non-profit corporations and with the principle that educational property must retain its public character. In particular, the phrase “a person designated in the residual asset disposal plan” does not clearly exclude founders, chairpersons, or their specially related persons, thereby leaving open the possibility of hereditary or private reversion of educational assets. In addition, the calculation of dissolution settlement payments based on “founder’s basic capital” raises concerns regarding the legal nature of the payment, the clarity of the statutory standard, and the risk that increased asset values formed through tuition and public support may be privately appropriated. From a constitutional perspective, the legislative purpose of encouraging the orderly exit of financially distressed private universities and protecting students and employees may be considered legitimate. Nevertheless, serious questions remain as to whether the dissolution settlement payment system is an appropriate means to achieve voluntary structural improvement, whether less restrictive alternatives exist, and whether a fair balance is maintained between the protection of university members and the interests of founders or controlling parties. The fact that this temporary law, effective only until 2035, may produce irreversible legal consequences, such as the dissolution of school corporations and permanent changes in residual asset ownership, further reveals a structural paradox: temporary regulation may generate permanent effects. Based on this analysis, the study proposes several legislative alternatives. The calculation of dissolution settlement payments should be strictly limited to the actual value of the founder’s substantive contribution, adjusted by objective standards such as inflation, and the law should explicitly prohibit payments to founders, chairpersons, and their specially related persons. In addition, the state should assume greater responsibility for protecting students and employees by establishing public financial mechanisms for compensation, rather than relying solely on the remaining assets of dissolved institutions. The liquidation system and rules on educational business transfer should also be refined, and the composition and operation of the Private School Structural Improvement Deliberation Committee should guarantee the participation of stakeholders, including students and faculty members. Ultimately, structural improvement of private universities must be designed in a manner that does not undermine the public nature of private education or the social character of educational property.

Statistics

  • 9 Viewed
  • 0 Downloaded

Tools

Issue List

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2024 are currently being built.

Basic Search Advanced Search